UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT   LOS  ANGEI 


FORNIA  ii 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS 


BY 
JOHN  OSCAR  LOFBERG,  Ph.D. 

Instructor  in  Greek,  University  of  Texas 


©:t»  ColUgurU  |Jr«H 

GtOCG*  Bant  a  Publishing  C01H>AtfY 

Menasha,  Wisconsin 


62  86- 12 


PREFACE 

The  investigation  of  this  subject  was  suggested  to  me  by  Professor 

Robert  J.  Bonner,  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  while  I  was  attending 

his  course  in  the  Private  Orations  of  Demosthenes.     To  his  advice  and 

r  invaluable  criticism  the  work  owes  the  larger  part  of  such  value  as  it  has. 

J.    O.    L. 
The  University  of  Texas 


to 


v 


426390 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

Page 
Introduction vii 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Development  of  Sycophancy 1 

Origin  —  Growth  —  Relation    to    Democracy    and    the    Popular 
Courts  —  Prevalence. 

CHAPTER  II 

The  Activities  and  Methods  of  Sycophants 26 

As  Litigant  —  As  Blackmailer  —  As  an  Agent  —  Clubs  and  Com- 
binations of  Sycophants  —  Sychophants  and  the  Allies. 

CHAPTER  III 

Typical  Athenian  Sycophants 73 

Agoratus  —  Callimachus  —  Aristogiton  —  Theocrines. 

CHAPTER  IV 

Checks'on  Sycophancy 86 

Indirect  —  Fines  and  partial  atimia  —  eww^eXia  —  Paragraphe. 
Direct — ypa<prj  avKOipavrlas — elaayyXia — irpo^oX-q — Methods 

employed  by  the  Thirty. 

Inefficiency  of  all  checks. 


INTRODUCTORY 

The  etymological  meaning  of  avucxpavTe'iv  has  been  the  subject 
of  speculation  from  the  time  of  Plutarch  to  the  present  day.  Plu- 
tarch's own  explanation  is  that  the  exportation  of  figs  from  Athens 
was  forbidden  in  early  times.  Those  who  reported  violations  of  this 
law  came  to  be  called  avKOipdvrat.1  The  same  explanation  is  found 
in  several  other  comments  on  the  meaning  of  the  term.2 

An  entirely  different  etymology  is  also  offered  by  the  ancients. 
The  people  were  once  forced  by  a  famine  to  steal  the  fruit  from  the 
Sacred  Fig  Trees.  This  was  an  act  of  great  sacrilege.  Those  who 
reported  the  guilty  received  the  name  of  <tvko<p6lvtcu3. 

Modern  efforts  at  reaching  a  satisfactory  explanation  are  inter- 
esting. 

Boeckh  assumes  that  the  term  is  equivalent  to  saying,  "to  make  a 
4>&<ns  of  as  little  consequence  as  a  fig."  In  other  words,  the  term 
merely  implies  a  groundless  charge.4 

Sittl  explains  it  by  comparing  the  term  with  the  French  /aire  la 
figue  and  the  Italian  far  la  fica.  This  was  an  obscene  gesture  em- 
ployed by  the  Greeks.  Originally,  therefore,  the  term  <xvKo<pai>Tr]s 
meant  v^plctttjs.5 

More  recent  explanations  are  those  offered  by  Reinach  and 
Girard.     They  rival  one  another  in  ingeniousness. 

The  former6  believes  that  the  origin  is  similar  to  that  of  kpoipkvr^s. 
Corresponding  to  the  iepcxpavrris  at  Eleusis  there  was  in  charge  of  the 
Grove  of  Sacred  Fig  Trees  at  Cephisius  a  ovno<pa.vTr)s.  The  cult  of  the 
Figs  was  of  equal  antiquity  with  that  of  Wheat  at  Eleusis.  The 
"elevation"  of  the  fig  was  V  acte  final  of  this  cult.  An  essential  act 
of  the  Mysteries  at  Eleusis  was  the  wpopp-qais  made  by  the  Upoip6.i>Ti]s. 
This  probably  led  to  delations  by  the  initiates  as  well  as  to  some  by  the 
Hierophant  himself.  The  high  office  of  this  Priest  kept  this  pro- 
clamation from  being  useless.     But  the  <rvi<o<p6.vTr)s  in  charge  of  the 

1  Solon  24;  De  Curiositalc  523. 

2  Athenaeus  III,  74  E;  Schol.  Plato  Rep.  340D;  Schol.  Ar.  Plutiis  873;  Etym. 
Magn.   s.  v.  <TVKoipai>Tla. 

1  Schol.  Ar.  Plutus  31;  Suidas  s.  v. 

Festus   (p.   303   Miiller)   gives  an  explanation  slightly  different  from    this. 
He  refers  to  no  famine,  but  merely  to  theft  of  figs  by  young  Athenians. 
4  Staatsh.  der  Ath.  ed.  Frankel  I,  56,  note  b. 
'  Gebdrdcn  der  Gricchen  und  Romcr,  103,  note  1. 
•  Rev.  des  Eludes  Grec.     Vol.  19,  342  ff. 


V  ii  BYCOPB  Mill  NS 

worship  connected   with  the   Fig  Cult   had  no  -uch  awe-inspiring 
tion.     His  7rp6pp7ja«  would  therefore  seem  of  ilighl  consequence 

and  his  delations  insignificant.  It  was  but  a  step  from  this  to  the 
use  of  the  term  mnuxpkirnn  to  indicate  a  troublesome  or  vexatious 
informer. 

Girard1  also  accounts  for  the  antiquity  of  the  term  by  connecting 
the  origin  of  its  use  with  the  theft  of  Sacred  Figs.  He  assumes 
that  the  verbal  part  of  Upo^aur^s  and  avKo^a.vT-q<;  was  originally  passive 
in  force.  The  former  then  meant  "a  sacred  vision,"  the  latter, 
6  h  rfi  cti'kj)  hTro<paivbntvos,  applying  to  one  caught  (kw'  avTo<p6pu>) 
in  the  act  of  stealing  figs.  This  name  would  stick  to  the  one  so 
detected  and  tried.  Next,  the  name  was  extended  to  those  sus- 
pected of  the  theft  of  figs.  Those  who  were  suspected  would  turn 
about  and  call  their  accusers  the  same.  In  this  way  the  term  came 
to  mean  a  calumniator  and  eventually  it  implied  a  groundless  accu- 
sation. 

An  explanation  that  the  student  of  the  Orators  and  Aristophanes 
will  feel  more  satisfactory  than  any  other  that  has  been  suggested 
is  that  offered  by  Shadwell,  in  his  commentary  on  Luke,  3:14.8  His 
explanation  depends  on  the  frequent  use  of  aueiv  as  practically  a 
synonym  of  avKOtpavrelv.  "treicrcu  kcu  avKOipavTrjaai  describes  the  opera- 
tion of  one  who  shakes  fig  trees  in  order  to  discover  the  fruit;  for  by 
his  shaking  the  fig  tree  all  the  ripe  figs  are  made  to  fall  off.  When 
these  words  are  transferred  to  the  business  of  an  informer,  aduv 
means  to  agitate  a  man  by  threatening  to  inform  against  him  and 
avKOipavTtiv  means  to  discover  his  money,  i.e.,  to  make  him  pay  a  large 
sum  of  money  in  order  to  escape  from  the  vexation  of  a  lawsuit. 
Thus  a  man's  money  is  called  his  'figs';  a  rich  man  is  said  to  be  'full 
of  fruit';  one  who  bleeds  easily  is  said  to  be  'ripe';  and  to  extort  money 
from  a  man  is  called  'plucking  his  figs.'  "9 

It  is  in  no  sense  the  purpose  of  this  discussion  to  add  a  new 
attempt  at  etymology  or  to  express  unqualified  approval  of  any 
of  those  mentioned.  Etymologizing  may  be  interesting,  but  after 
all  it  can  hardly  throw  much  light  on  what  the  Athenian  of  the  time 
of  the  orators  meant  when  he  used  the  term. 

'  Ibid.,  Vol.  20,  143  ff. 

1  Quoted  by  Kennedy  in  his  article  on  Sycophant  in  Smith's  Greek  and  Roman 
Antiquities. 

*  Photius  s.  v.  atlaai ;  Aristophanes  Knights  324,  259;  Mein.  Fr.  Comic  ii. 
p.  364,  1040  Fr.  20;  Antiphon  6:43. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  ix 

A  satisfactory  definition  of  the  term  is  as  elusive  as  the  ety- 
mology. More  or  less  epigrammatic  descriptions  are  found  in  the 
orators.  "For  this  it  is  to  be  a  pettifogger  {ovuoipavr-qs) — to  make 
all  kinds  of  charges,  and  to  prove  nothing."10  "Their  business  is  to 
involve  in  accusation  even  those  who  have  done  no  wrong,  for  from 
them  they  can  make  the  greatest  gains."11  "By  displaying  their 
powers  in  the  case  of  those  who  do  no  wrong,  they  get  more  money 
from  those  who  are  clearly  guilty  of  crimes."12  "I  think  that  every 
one  knows  that  those  who  are  clever  speakers,  and  without  money, 
are  especially  the  ones  who  try  to  bring  vexatious  charges  against 
those  who  have  no  ability  at  speaking,  but  can  pay  well."13 

Definition  is  difficult  because  the  Greek  writers  themselves 
allowed  such  wide  extension  in  the  meaning  of  the  term.  In  the 
words  of  Kennedy,  "the  term  suggested  a  happy  compound  of  com- 
mon barretor,  informer,  pettifogger,  busybody,  rogue,  liar  and 
slanderer.14  It  included  calumny  and  conspiracy,  false  accusation, 
malicious  prosecution,  threats  of  legal  proceedings  to  extort  money, 
and  generally,  all  abuse  of  legal  process  for  mischievous  or  fraudu- 
lent purposes."15 

It  was  but  natural  that,  as  Aeschines  says,  the  term  came  to  be 
used  for  all  scoundrels.16  However,  such  extension  in  the  use  of  the 
term  has  no  part  in  this  study. 

The  term  avKcxpavTris  was  applied,  in  the  limited  sense,  to  the 
unscrupulous  and  over  litigious  person  who  was  ready  to  enter  suit 
with  no  other  motive  than  personal  gain.  It  was  then  naturally 
extended  to  any  one  who  collected  blackmail  by  mere  threats  of  a 
suit.  Such  a  use  made  it  apply  equally  well  to  the  nrjpvT^,  who  forced 
people  to  pay  blackmail  by  threatening  information  (nr/wais)  with  no 
intention  of  using  the  courts. 

Non-litigious  persons  often  needed  assistance  in  managing  their 
legal  affairs.  Such  assistance  they  obtained  from  Xoyoypcapoi  and 
avvrjyopoi  and  others  skilled  in  such  matters.  Apart  from  the  X070- 
ypa<pos  all  assistance  was  supposed  to  be  rendered  on  the  basis  of 

10  Dem.  57,  34. 

11  Lys.  25,  3. 

12  Isoc.  15,  24. 
I3Isoc.  21,  5. 

M  Smith,  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities  s.  v.  Sycophant. 
16  Orations  of  Demosthenes  (Trans.),  Vol.  Ill,  344. 
w  2.  99. 


\  BYCOPB  \N<V  l\    MIIKNS 

friendship  or  club  membership.  It  was  however  impossible  to  enforce 
these  restrictions.  The  hiring  of  witnesses  as  well  as  ow-qyopoi 
grew  to  be  a  very  usual  thing.  To  such  men  the  term  <jvKo<pavTr)s 
was  readily  applied.  The  general  public  would  see  little,  if  any, 
difference  between  men  of  this  class  and  others  who  manipulated 
the  courts  for  financial  profit.  Whatever  distinction  there  was  would 
be  broken  down  also  by  the  fact  that,  generally,  men  skilled  in  all 
forms  of  legal  trickery  would  be  the  most  desirable  assistants. 

Men  of  the  type  that  could  be  hired  to  act  as  witnesses  and 
advocates,  would  also  be  in  demand  for  other  kinds  of  work,  more 
or  less  closely  connected  with  the  courts.  The  service  that  they 
rendered  might,  in  some  cases,  be  in  no  sense  illegal  or  reprehensible. 
But  the  stamp  of  professionalism  affixed  to  such  agents,  by  their 
accepting  pay  for  their  services,  tended  to  confuse  them  with  the 
sycophant  in  the  estimation  of  the  public. 

False  witness,  professional  advocacy,  information,  blackmail, 
pettifoggery  and  general  roguery  were  the  things  connoted  by  the 
term  avKo^avT-qs.11 

Handbooks  and  Dictionaries  of  Antiquity  contain  brief  and  often 
extremely  satisfactory18  discussions  of  the  Sycophant.  It  is,  of  course, 
beyond  their  scope  to  make  a  special  study  of  the  matter.  Such 
special  study  was  attempted  by  DeVos.19  His  treatment  is  also  brief20 
and  differs  from  the  discussions  in  the  Handbooks  mainly  in  that  he 
gives  more  details  concerning  one  or  two  well  known  sycophants. 

His  dissertation  contains  chapters  on  Sycophanta  in  Foro,  in  Vita 
Familiari,  in  Vita  Publico,,  inter  Socios,  Consociationes  Sycophantarum, 
Sycophantae  et  Demagogi  and  Sycophantarum  coercendorum  rationes. 
The  chapter  entitled  In  Foro  is  largely  a  paraphrase  of  the  well 
known  passages  of  the  Acharnians  dealing  with  the  sycophants  in 
the  market.  The  next  two  are  apparently  intended  to  give  an  idea 
of  the  private  and  public  life  of  the  Sycophant.     In  Vita  Familiari 

17  According  to  the  fragment  of  Theopompus  (107),  Philip  of  Macedon 
considered  false  witnesses,  perjurers,  professional  advocates  and  sycophants, 
as  all  alike  candidates  for  his  proposed  City  of  Correction  {irovTip6wo\is) .  Vid. 
p.  "4  fur  fuller  statement  of  this.     Cf.  Xen.  Mem.  IV,  4,  11. 

18  Notably  Kennedy's  treatment  already  mentioned  and  Navarre's  in 
Diet,  its  Atiliq.    (Darem.   et    Sag.).      The  latter's  definition   will   bear  quoting: 

"Delation,  escroquerie  et  chantage,  ces  trois  termes  r£sument  assez  enactement, 
comme  on  le  voit,  l'industrie  complexe  du  sycophante." 

19  Dc  Sycophantis.     Amsterdam,  1868. 
50  75  pp. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  xi 

includes  a  discussion  of  the  attitude  of  Sycophants  toward  rich  men, 
blackmail,  Stephanus  and  his  methods  of  extorting  money  from  the 
patrons  of  Neaera,  the  private  career  of  Aristogiton.  In  Vita  Publico, 
includes  some  statements  on  the  use  of  dUrj  and  ypa<pri,  and  estimates 
of  the  amount  of  money  that  a  sycophant  might  make  by  his  trade. 
Inter  Socios  and  Consociationes  are  very  brief  and  do  not  make  use 
of  the  available  material  to  any  great  extent.  Sycophantae  et  Dema- 
gogi  is  nothing  more  than  an  account  of  the  numerous  delations  at 
the  time  of  the  excitement  following  the  Mutilation  of  the  Hermae. 
His  last  chapter  is  fairly  complete  and  more  satisfactory  than  the 
others. 

Some  of  the  conclusions  and  inferences  of  DeVos  are  erroneous. 
But  in  general  the  chief  fault  of  the  treatment  is  its  incompleteness 
and  inadequacy.  He  seems  to  be  unfamiliar  with  some  of  the  best 
examples  and  does  not  make  adequate  use  of  those  with  which  he  is 
evidently  familiar.  It  is  really  a  Handbook  discussion  with  some 
details  supplied.  And  even  so  it  is  questionable  whether  he  supplies 
the  details  in  the  proper  places.21 

There  is  unquestionably  a  place  for  an  investigation  of  this 
impottant  feature  of  Athenian  public  life  that  shall  be  more  complete 
and  take  into  consideiation  the  available  material  on  the  subject. 
That  is  the  purpose  of  the  present  study. 

21  Navarre,  in  the  article  just  mentioned,  does  not  include  this  dissertation 
in  his  bibliography. 


CHAPTER  I 

The  Development  of  Sycophancy 
Its  Origin 

The  lack  of  a  state  prosecutor  in  Athens  put  on  the  ordinary 
citizen  the  responsibility  of  prosecuting  public  as  well  as  private1 
offenders.  From  the  Athenian  standpoint,  no  other  system  would 
have  been  "democratic."  It  was  merely  one  of  the  ways  in  which 
each  citizen  helped  to  share  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the 
state.  Solon  is  quoted  by  Plutarch2  as  believing  that  the  best 
governed3  state  was  the  one  in  which  those  who  were  not  wronged 
were  no  less  diligent  in  prosecuting  wrong-doers  than  those  who  had 
personally  suffered.  To  realize  this  condition  he  introduced  into  the 
Athenian  constitution  the  provision  that  any  citizen  might  claim 
legal  satisfaction  on  behalf  of  anyone  who  was  wronged,  "to 
k^etvat  tw  PovXonhu)  tl/jlco  [peiv\  virep  ra)v  dSiKOi^evooi'."4  This  provision 
was  always  regarded  as  one  of  the  cornerstones  of  Athenian  democ- 
racy.6 The  Athenians  were  fond  of  expressing  their  approval  of  the 
men  who  were  vigilant  in  public  activity  and  who  took  advantage  of 
the  opportunity  to  bring  offenders  to  justice.  Pericles  states  that  they 
considered  the  one  who  refrained  from  participation  in  matters  of  pub- 
lic interest  not  inactive  {airpdyixuv),  but  useless  (dxpeTos).6  Prosecutors 
often  emphasize  the  important  part  that  such  vigilant  citizens  play  in 
the  state.  "  I  consider  it  the  duty  of  a  good  citizen  to  undergo  dangers 
for  the  democracy  and  not  to  keep  quiet  about  public  matters  from 
fear  of  incurring  personal  enmity."7  "It  is  the  part  of  a  good 
citizen  to  consider  those  that  are  guilty  of  some  illegality  against  the 
state  as  personal  enemies."8  "Of  the  three  important  things  that 
preserve  the  democracy  and  the  state,  the  greatest  is  '77  tovtois 
(the  judges)  r'  a8iKr)/j,a.T<x  7rapa<5i5o0cra  Kptcris'."9 

Plato,  a  great  critic  of  Athenian  democracy,  in  the  Laws  pro- 
vides for  the  punishment  of  public  offenders  by  methods  like  the 

1  Private  cases  (5£kcu)  would  of  course  necessarily  originate  with  the  person 
directly  affected. 

2  Plut.  Sol.  18.     Cf.  DeVos  3-4 

*  KaWiffTa  oiKeZrai. 

♦Arist.  Const.ofAlh.9.   1;   Plut.  Solon    18. 

6  Arist.  Const,  of  Ath.  9.1. 

•  Thuc.  II,  40. 

7  (And.)  4,  1. 

8  Lye.  c.  Leocr.  6. 

9  Ibid.  4. 


2  BYCQPH  \'-'  1   I'-    '  i  BD 

Athenian  in  mo  I  e  entials.  "Such  causes  (public)  ought  to  origi- 
nate with  the  people  and  they  OUghl  to  have  the  final  decision  of 
them."10  "For  all  are  injured  when  Someone  injures  the  state."11 
"Worthy  of  honor,  too,  is  he  who  does  no  injustice,  and  of  more  than 
two  told  honor  if  he  not  only  does  no  injustice  himself,  but  hinders 
Others  from  doing  any;  the  first  may  count  as  one  man,  the  second 
is  worth  many  men,  because  he  informs  the  rulers  of  the  injustice  of 
other 

It  came  to  be  very  customary  for  prosecutors  to  attempt  to  gain 
favor  with  the  jurors  by  representing  their  ^uits  as  great  benefits 
to  the  state.  "Since  I  saw  that  the  city  was  being  greatly  harmed, 
I  thought  it  was  one  of  the  most  shameful  things  not  to  go  to  the  aid 
of  the  whole  state  and  the  laws  and  you  and  myself."13  "In  aid  of 
my  native  land  and  the  temples  and  the  laws  I  have  brought  this  suit 
as  a  citizen  should,  rightly  and  justly."14 

But  this  encouragement  of  citizens  to  prosecute  public  offenders 
resulted  in  a  serious  abuse  of  the  courts.  Prosecutors  who  had 
only  personal  motives  could  take  advantage  of  the  freedom  in  bringing 
ypa<pal  as  easily  as  those  who  were  in  reality  public-spirited.  Herein 
sycophancy  had  its  origin.  The  situation  offered  an  unscrupulous 
person  excellent  opportunities  to  use  the  courts  as  a  means  of  profit, 
under  cover  of  benefitting  the  state.  This  is  vividly  brought  out  in 
the  Plutus15  in  the  dialogue  between  Chremylus  and  the  Sycophant. 
The  latter  has  come  to  lament  the  fate  that  is  his,  now  that  the  god 
Plutus  has  received  his  sight.  The  just  are  prospering  and  the  unjust 
are  reduced  to  poverty. 

Syc.  Alas!  What  misery  it  is  that  I,  good  and  patriotic  citizen 
that  I  am,  should  be  so  mistreated! 

Chrem.     You  patriotic  and  good? 

Syc.     As  never  man  was. 

Chrem.     Well,  tell  me — 

Syc.     Tell  you  what? 

Chrem.     Are  you  an  honest  tiller  of  the  soil? 

10  768  A.  (Jowett) 

11  Ibid.  768  A. 
» Ibid.  730  D. 
l»  Aesch.  I,  1-2. 

14  Lye.  c.  Ltoc.  149,  dTo3<5w#ta  t6v  &7wi>a.     The  significance  of  the  prefix  Lrb  is 
to  be  noted.     He  has  done  his  duty  to  the  state. 
■  Ax.  Plutus  900  ff . 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  3 

Syc.     What  do  you  take  me  for? 

Chrem.     Or  a  merchant? 

Syc.     Oh  yes.     I  pretend  to  be  when  it  suits  my  purpose. 

Chrem.     Well  then.     Do  you  know  any  trade? 

Syc.     No,  by  Jove. 

Chrem.  But  how  and  from  what  source  did  you  make  your 
living  before  this,  if  you  don't  do  anything? 

Syc.     I  am  manager  of  all  affairs  of  state  and  private  affairs  too.18 

Chrem.     You!     Why  under  the  sun  do  you  do  that? 

Syc.     I  want  to. 

Chrem.  How  can  you  be  good,  you  house-breaker,  if  you  make 
yourself  an  object  of  hatred  by  meddling  in  things  that  in  no  way 
concern  you? 

Syc.  What?  Is  it  not  my  concern,  you  booby,  to  help  my 
city  as  far  as  I  can? 

Chrem.     Then  do  you  call  being  a  busy-body  helping  your  city? 

Syc.  It  isn't  that  at  all.  It  is  aiding  the  established  laws  and 
if  any  one  does  wrong,  not  to  let  it  pass.17 

Chrem.  But  doesn't  the  state  appoint  judges  for  just  that  pur- 
pose?18 

Syc.     But  who  is  the  accuser? 

Chrem.     Any  one  who  pleases  (6  fiovkoiitvos)  .19 

Syc.  Well  that's  who  I  am.  So  that  the  affairs20  of  the  state  now 
rest  on  my  shoulders. 

It  is  clear  that  the  sycophant  as  well  as  the  legitimate  prosecutor 
would  be  anxious  to  have  the  reputation  that  the  one  in  the  Plutus 
claims.  It  was  to  his  interest  also  to  show  that  he  aided  the  state 
and  that  on  him  "rested  the  welfare  of  his  native  land." 

This  passage  from  the  Plutus  shows  how  difficult  it  is  to  draw 
the  line  of  demarcation  between  the  public-spirited,  personality  dis- 
interested prosecutor  and  the  sycophant.     An  excellent  opportunity 

19  irpaynara  suggests  the  familiar  pun  on  the  word  in  its  double  meaning  of 
affairs  and  law-suits. 

17  914-915.        @OT)dtlv     TOLS     VOp.01%     ....         KO.I     (J.T)     '  iriTptTTtlV ,     kkv     TtS     d/idpT dvTJ . 

cf.   Aesch.    1;    1.  ^orjOrjvat.  .  .  .   roh  vbp.oi.%  k.t.X.  and  Plato  Laws  730  D  p.r)8'  tTriTp'tTruiv 
toIs  adiKovcnv  aStKtlv  quoted  above. 

18  This  recalls  the  words  of  the  orator  Lycurgus  when  he  refers  to  the  accuser 
as  the  most  important  of  the  three  things  that  save  the  state,     (c.  Leoc.  4). 

19  The  identification  of  the  sycophant  with  6  0ov\6p,tvos  shows  us  the  effect  of 
the  ru>  BovXontvy  of  Solon's  legislation. 

20  Once  more  the  pun  on  Trpa.-yp.aTa. 


•J  .    I  .    ITHENS 

for  comparing  the  two  typea  of  prosecutors  ia  found  in  the  speech 
of    Antiphon    On   the   Choir  Boy.     Such  are    of    course 

irte  and  repre  enl  the  situation  in  the  li^ht  most  favorable  to 
the  speaker.  The  real  facta  of  the  case  may  therefore  be  distorted. 
Bui  the  value  of  the  speeches  for  the  presenl  purpose  i-  nol  impaired 
for  this  reason.  For  il  ia  of  little  interest,  after  all,  whether  an  indi- 
vidual  speaker  misrepresents  the  situation  or  not.  On  the  contrary 
his  statements  are  in  facl  very  illuminating.  It  would  be  unthink- 
able  that  he  ascribed  to  himself,  or  accused  others  of,  motives  that 
were  unheard  of  by  the  Athenians.  In  fact,  it  would  be  to  his 
interest  to  represent  himself  as  acting  in  a  natural  way,  and  to  accuse 
his  opponent  of  something  reasonably  common  in  Athens.  A  review 
of  the  ea^e  will  show  the  difference  between  the  conscientious  prose- 
tutor  and  the  sycophant. 

The  speaker  is  a  wealthy  Athenian  who  had  brought  an  eisangelia 
before  the  Boule  against  certain  officials  for  theft  of  public  funds. 
The  senate  had  accepted  the  eisangelia  and  handed  the  case  over  to 
the  court  of  the  Thesmothetae  for  trial.  After  he  had  brought  the 
eisangelia,  and  just  as  he  was  preparing  to  prosecute  the  officials  in 
the  court,  he  was  elected  to  the  office  of  Choregus.  Since  he  was 
anxious  to  prosecute  the  case,  he  procured  some  efficient  men  to 
take  care  of  the  chorus  he  had  collected,  and  turned  the  training  over 
to  them.  Before  the  trial  of  the  officials,  Diodotus,  one  of  the  boys 
in  the  chorus,  died.  It  was  said  that  his  death  was  due  to  a  draught 
that  had  been  given  him  for  his  voice.21  The  relatives  of  the  boy  did 
not  at  first  take  any  action  against  the  choregus  or  any  of  his  assis- 
tants. In  fact,  for  two  days  after  the  boy's  death  they  talked  with 
him  and  treated  him  in  such  a  way  that  it  was  evident  that  they  did 
not  hold  him  responsible.22  But  on  the  third  day,  the  day  on  which 
the  boy  was  buried,  this  attitude  suddenly  changed.  This  was  the 
day  preceding  the  one  set  for  the  trial  of  the  first  of  the  eisangelia 
cases  in  which  the  choregus  was  the  prosecutor.  On  this  day  Philo- 
crates,  the  brother  of  the  dead  boy,  appeared  in  the  court  of  the 
Thesmothetae  and  announced  that  the  choregus  had  forced  the  boy 
to  drink  the  drug  and  was  responsible  for  the  death.23  This  same 
court  was  to  sit  the  next  day  on  the  first  of  the  cases.24     Philocrates 

:i  Ant.  6.  12-16. 
» Ibid.  34. 
•Ibid.  21;  34;  VI. 

uIbid.  21-23.  The  jurors  sat  in  the  same  court  day  after  day  at  this 
date.     Cf.  Lipsius  Das  Attiscke  Redd  (A.R.)  137-138. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  5 

had  been  bribed  by  the  accused  officials  to  make  this  announcement 
and  to  start  the  prosecution  of  the  choregus.25  The  latter  was  the 
only  one  fully  acquainted  with  their  pilfering  and  if  they  could  get 
him  out  of  the  way  so  that  he  could  not  appear  and  accuse  them, 
they  hoped  to  go  free.26  This  accusation  made  by  Philocrates  before 
the  court  that  was  to  try  the  cases,  right  on  the  eve  of  the  trial,  was 
calculated  to  prejudice  the  jurors.27  Furthermore,  if  the  Basileus 
would  enter  the  case  for  trial  the  choregus  would  certainly  be  pro- 
hibited from  public  places  and  would  be  unable  to  appear  against 
them.  It  is  clear  that  the  evidence  against  them  was  so  strong  that 
they  had  no  hopes  of  acquittal  if  the  prosecutor  appeared.27  As 
soon  as  Philocrates  had  made  this  accusation  in  the  court  of  the 
Thesmothetae,  the  choregus  arose  and  denounced  him  because  he 
had  taken  this  informal  and  illegal  way  of  accusing  him  before  the 
jurors.  He  made  it  clear  to  the  court  why  it  was  that  Philocrates 
had  done  this,  and  at  whose  instigation.  Then  he  turned  to  Philo- 
crates and  challenged  him  to  examine  any  of  those  who  were 
acquainted  with  the  facts  of  the  death,  slave  and  free.  The  chal- 
lenge was  not  accepted.28 

After  his  sensational  appearance  in  the  court  room  Philocrates 
went  to  the  Basileus  to  get  the  case  entered  on  the  calendar.29  But 
the  term  of  office  of  the  Basileus  was  so  nearly  over  that  he  was 
prevented  by  law  from  entering  the  case.30  No  proclamation  pro- 
hibiting the  choregus  from  the  public  places  was  made.  The  explana- 
tion that  he  had  offered  of  the  reasons  for  the  denunciation  that  Philo- 
crates had  made  probably  satisfied  the  jurors,  for  the  choregus 
carried  the  cases  of  the  officials  into  court  as  he  had  planned;  and 
although  Philocrates  assisted  the  defendants  and  made  much  of  the 
death  of  the  choir  boy,  they  were  convicted  and  fined.31 

After  this  the  relatives  of  the  dead  boy  did  not,  as  one  might 
expect,  bring  the  matter  of  his  death  before  the  new  Basileus  who 
would  have  no  technical  reasons  for  refusing  the  case,  but  they  let 
the  matter  drop.     They  were  very  anxious  to  be  reconciled  to  the 

KIbid.  21;  34-36. 
nIbid.  21;  36. 
»  36-37. 
"21. 
"38. 

»°38;    42. 

"  That  Philocrates  and  others  assisted  the  officials  is  clear  from  the  language. 
'  Kol  ovtoi  wv  tPtna  iXd/u/Jafoe  \P'hlxaTa  oiibkv  avrois  olol  Tt  fjcrav  <l>ip(\rjcrai."  (38) 


U  SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS 

choregufl  and  let  by-gones  be  by-gones.  At  the  requests  of  friends 
he  accepted  their  offers  of  reconciliation.  For  nearly  five  months 
the  e  apparently  friendly  relations  existed  between  the  choregus  and 
the  relativea  of  the  dead  boy.  Philocrates  himself  was  especially 
anxious  to  show  his  good  will  toward  him.32  Then  without  any 
warning  the  relatives,  headed  by  Philocrates,  again  accused  the 
choregus  of  the  death  of  the  boy.  This  time  the  new  Basileus  entered 
the  case  and  the  choregus  was  proclaimed  as  polluted  and  was  pro- 
hibited from  coming  into  public  places.33  He  was  then  brought  to 
trial  and  the  presenl  speech  was  delivered.'" 

This  second  accusation,  as  well  as  the  first  was  "trumped  up." 
Philocrates  and  those  who  assisted  him  were  professional  accusers  or 
sycophant-/'  He  was  not  concerned  in  the  prosecution  of  the  one 
responsible  for  his  brother's  death.36  When  someone  was  ready  to 
pay  him  to  accuse  he  accused;  when  there  was  no  one  ready  with  the 
money  he  tried  to  be  on  friendly  terms  with  the  man  whom  he  now 
accused.37  This  time  he  had  received  a  "retainer  fee"  of  thirty  minae 
from  a  second  set  of  officials  that  the  choregus  had  begun  to  prose- 
cute.38 To  account  for  the  failure  of  his  first  effort  at  prosecuting 
him,  Philocrates  had  stated  that  the  former  Basileus  was  partial  to 
the  choregus.  The  latter  shows  that  this  could  not  be  the  true 
explanation:  the  Basileus  had  had  good  reasons  for  refusing  to  accept 
the  case;  if  Philocrates  had  felt  that  he  had  any  chance  of  proving 
anything  against  the  Basileus  he  would  have  appeared  at  the  euthynae 
and  accused  him,  or  in  fact  merely  threatened  him  with  accusation, 
for  his  regular  business  was  to  levy  blackmail  upon  officials  on  such 
occasions.39 

Both  of  these  men  are  active  citizens.  Each  one  seems  to  have 
devoted  his  efforts  to  attacks  on  officials.  But  if  we  accept  the 
version  of  the  choregus,  as  indeed  we  must,  the  difference  between  the 
two  is  vast.  It  lies  in  their  motives.  The  choregus  is  a  type  of  the 
ideal  citizen.     He  performed  his  choregic  liturgy  to  the  best  of  his 

■  38-39. 
"42,  40. 

"  16.     For  theories  on  the  form  of  accusation  see  Lipsius  A.  R.    125.     Cf. 
Jebb,  AU.  Or.  Vol.  I,  62. 
»  43,  48. 
"44-45. 
"48. 
»49. 
"  43.    lam  Kai  ioiKo^avrti.  The  expressive  word  atiu  recalls  our  "  shake  down." 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  7 

ability.  He  did  not  let  his  wealth  keep  him  from  participation  in 
matters  of  public  welfare.  In  the  interest  of  the  state  he  prosecuted 
at  least  two  sets  of  officials.  For  these  efforts  his  only  compensation 
was  the  satisfaction  of  correcting  flagrant  wrongs. 

Philocrates  on  the  other  hand  had  no  such  motives  for  his  activi- 
ties in  the  courts.  Instead  of  bringing  to  justice  the  wrong  doers 
by  prosecutions,  he  made  a  business  of  extorting  money  from  officials 
by  threatening  them  with  prosecutions  when  they  were  to  render 
account  of  their  office.  "Falsely  accusing  magistrates  and  accepting 
hush-money"  can  only  mean  blackmail.  There  is  no  indication 
that  he  was  sufficiently  interested  in  establishing  justice  to  carry 
through  a  trial  against  officials  who  deserved  punishment.  No  doubt 
the  only  motive  that  he  would  have  for  doing  that,  would  be  the 
desire  to  gain  a  reputation  that  would  make  him  dreaded  and  there- 
fore render  his  threats  more  fruitful  of  gain.  He  even  allowed  him- 
self to  be  used  as  a  hireling  for  the  prosecution  of  the  choregus.  The 
very  fact  that  he  was  chosen  by  the  accused  officials  as  a  suitable 
tool  shows  that  he  was  well  known  as  a  sycophant. 

Such  a  man  as  Philocrates  might  of  course  indirectly  be  the  source 
of  some  good  to  the  state.  Many  might  be  kept  from  wrongdoing 
by  the  fear  that  these  men  engendered,  and  offenders  might  some- 
times be  brought  to  account  by  their  prosecutions.  In  fact,  the 
Athenians  were  in  a  sense  reconciled  to  the  sycophant  as  an  inevit- 
able nuisance.  But  the  evil  of  sycophancy  lay  in  the  fact  that  it 
offered  an  unscrupulous  individual  the  opportunity  of  preying  on 
honest  men  by  threats  of  accusation  and  blackmail.  The  sycophant 
was  not  concerned  in  anything  but  his  own  financial  interest  and 
must  have  been  the  cause  of  more  harm  than  good.  This  naturally 
made  "informers"  an  object  of  hatred  even  in  Athens. 

The  Growth  of  Sycophancy 
It  is  evident  that  the  origin  of  sycophancy  is  to  be  found  in  the 
lack  of  a  publicly-appointed  prosecutor  and  in  the  freedom  with  which 
7pa</>cu  could  be  brought.  But  it  could  not  have  been  a  serious  evil 
until  the  supremacy  of  the  popular  courts  was  assured40  under  the 
full    democracy    that  followed   the    period    of   the    Persian    Wars. 

40  Cf.  the  development  of  sycophancy  in  Sicily  after  the  overthrow  of  the 
tyrants  and  the  establishment  of  democracies  (Diod.  XI,  87,  5.).  The  ide.i  is 
well  worded  by  the  chorus  of  jurors  in  Ar.  Wasps  1091;  1094-7  ob  ydp  tjv  .  .  . 
ov5k     crvKo<pavTr](rtiv      rivd.   ippovrls. 


g  IT  IN  ATHE1 

II,  ,  courts  had  their  beginning  in  the  Solonian  constitution. 
Appeals  lrom  the  judgmenl  of  magi  trate  whose  deci  ion  heretofore 
had  been  final  were  allowed  to  be  brought  before  a  OLKaar-npiov  to 
whirl)  all  citizens  were  eligible.41  The  natural  result  of  this  was  that 
tlu.  deci  ions  of  magistrates  came  to  be  considered  of  very  slight 
importance.  And  in  the  course  of  time  the  popular  body  received 
the  right  to  try  i  ;  and  finally.     The  process  that  led  to  this 

was  no  doubt  very  gradual.  It  is  natural  to  connect  the  last  step 
with  the  reforms  of  Cleisthenes,  who.  even  in  antiquity,  was  regarded 
as  tin-  rial  founder  of  Athenian  democracy.41  It  is  hardly  likely  that 
any  complete  use  was  made  of  these  courts  until  after  the  long  struggle 
that  terminated  in  the  complete  overthrow  of  the  power  of  the 
Areopauus.;;i  But  as  Aristotle  says  "when  the  Demus  became 
master  of  the  ^Vos,  it  was  master  of  the  state.''"  When  one  con- 
siders the  various  things  that  came  under  the  supervision  of  the 
courts,  it  becomes  clear  how  true  this  was.  Many  other  duties 
besides  the  ordinary  public  and  private  suits  helped  to  increase  their 
importance.  They  were  called  upon  to  decide  the  question  of  the 
lity  of  laws  and  decrees.  Eisangeliae  which  were  brought  before 
the  ccclesia  or  Boule  might  be  transferred  to  the  courts  for  trial. 
The  courts  exercised  final  jurisdiction  in  the  matter  of  dokimasiae 
and  euthynae  and,  consequently,  magistrates  were  under  their 
control.45     The  development  of  the  Athenian  empire  also  added  to 

DeVos  (p.  4)  implies  that  in  early  times  of  the  provision    were    met 

variis  modis.  What  these  were  he  does  not  state.  It  is  improbable  that 
any  wore  needed.  Abuses  could  hardly  have  amounted  to  much  until  after  the 
Persian  Wars. 

41  Arist.  Cowl,  of  Athens.  7.3;  Plut  Solon  18;  Arist  Petit.  1274  A.  Lipsius 
.1.  A'.  2S  IT.  It  is  a  matter  of  dispute  whether  Solon  at  once  divided  the  body  of 
jurors  into  sections.  Aristotle's  language  is  ambiguous,  7,  3  SiKaarripluv,  9,  2 
SiKcurr^puH'.  It  is  more  probable  that  the  whole  body  of  Athenians  acted  as  a 
jury  at  first  and  that  as  such  the  term  SiKCHrrqpiov  or  'HXiata  (Lys.  10,  16)  was 
applied  to  them,  to  distinguish  this  function  from  their  duties  as  legislators.  Cf. 
Gilbert  Const.  Antiquit.  (Eng.)  393,  De  Sanctis,  Storia  ddla  Republica  Athcniese, 
p.  250.     Ktil,  Einleitung  in  die  Altertiimswissenschaft,  III,  362  (1st  ed.).     Bonner, 

a.  Phn.  vim.  j. 

41  Lipsius,  A.  R.  32-33;  Aristot.  Const.  Athens.  24,  3. 

*»  Const,  of  Athens  23-24.     Lipsius  .4.  R.  34. 

*Ibid.  9.1;   Plut.  Solon  18. 

«*  It  is  natural  to  regard  the  right  to  examine  officials  as  originally  belonging 
to  the  Areopagus.  Cf.  Const,  of  Athens.  S.  2.  Lipsius  (A.  R.  37)  suggests  that 
the  conduct  of  these  two  examinations  was  given  to  the  courts  (dicasteries)  about 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  9 

their  prestige.  Many  of  the  law  suits  of  the  subject  states  could 
be  tried  only  at  Athens.46  The  great  commercial  development 
of  the  city  entailed  an  immense  amount  of  litigation.  The  con- 
gestion of  business  of  all  kinds  in  Athens  at  this  period  is  well  des- 
cribed in  the  Xenophontic  Politeia.  "A  man  could  not  get  his 
business  attended  to  even  if  he  stayed  in  the  city  a  year.  And  no 
wonder.  No  state  ever  had  so  many  things  to  manage.  Festivals 
more  in  number  than  any  other  Greek  state  had;  matters  of  war, 
finance,  legislation,  taxes,  shipyards,  temples.  Then  the  business 
of  the  courts.  Innumerable  5ikcu,  ypa<pai,  eudvvcu,  8oKLp.acrtai,  5ia<5iKa- 
<ncu.  More  than  all  the  other  states  together  could  settle."47  "You 
Athenians  do  nothing  but  try  cases,"  says  Trygaeus  in  the  Peace.** 
And  the  exaggeration  is  but  slight.  Litigation  was  the  distinguishing 
mark  of  Athens.  Strepsiades  in  the  Clouds  refuses  to  believe  that  a 
certain  place  on  the  map  is  Athens  because  "he  sees  no  law  courts 
sitting."49 

This  situation  rendered  pay  for  jurors  necessary.  It  was  impos- 
sible to  find  enough  judges  ready  to  attend  the  courts  day  after  day 
without  compensation.  Pay  for  the  service  made  it  possible  for  the 
poorer  and  more  undesirable  to  act  as  jurors.  The  result  was  that  the 
courts  grew  to  be  gatherings  of  the  idle  and  less  competent  who 
enjoyed  the  flattering  respect  of  the  litigants  and  the  sense  of  impor- 
tance that  their  authority  gave  them.50  The  \f/rj<pos  of  the  juror  was 
the  mightiest  thing  in  the  state51  and  the  members  of  the  dicasteries 
could  truthfully  say  with  Philocleon  "We  are  lords  of  all."52  Jurors 
of  this  sort  were  only  too  ready  to  encourage  litigation.  They 
depended  upon  it  for  their  income. 

In  such  a  soil  the  business  of  the  sycophant  grew  apace.     The  evdupai, 
boKijiaaiai,  elcrayyeXlat  and  ypa<pai  wa.pav6p.iov  offered    as  good  chances 

the  time  of  Ephialtes  and  Pericles.  For  a  fuller  statement  in  regard  to  the 
courts  and  these  examinations  of  officials,  see  pp.  43  fl.  The  matter  is  discussed, 
with  the  various  views  by  Lipsius,  A.  R.  269  ff.;  Gilbert,  Const.  Aniiquil.  218  ff. 
(Eng.).  Vid.  Arist.  Const.  Allans  45,  3;  55,  2. 

"  (Xen.)  Pol.  Ath.  1.  16;  Busolt,  Griechische  Gesckichte  IN,  1,  230. 

«7  Ibid.  Ill,  1-6. 

48  Ar.  Peace  505. 

"Ar.  Clouds  207-208. 

60  Arist.  Const,  of  Athens  27,  3;  Politics,  1274  a  8;  Plut.  Per.  9;  Plato  Gorgias  515  E; 
cf.  Bury  Hist,  of  Greece  349.  Isoc.  8,  130.  "Those  who  live  on  their  fees  as  jurors 
are  grateful  for  the  numerous  trials." 

"Lysias  1,  36;  Dem.  21,  223. 

"Ar.  Wasps  517. 


10  ,    I\     WH! 

for  hl;u  km.iil  as  the  ordinary  ypa<pal.  This  was  especially  true  of 
the  fin(  two.  I'll'-  case  of  the  Chorcgus  shows  what  excellent 
chances  there  wen-  f«>r  activity  in  the  prosecution  of  officials. 

Sycophancy  was  the  inevitable  disease  of  democracy.  In  the 
wordfl  of  Plutarch  "nol  only  a^  Simonides  says  'on  every  lark  must 
grow  a  crest'  bul  also  in  every  democracy  there  must  spring  up  a 
false  accuser."1  Of  no  community  could  this  be  more  true  than  of 
litigious  Athens,  where  the  chances  of  perverting  justice  were  so 
numerous  because  of  the  character  of  the  courts,  the  very  bodies 
thai  were  intended  to  maintain  justice. 

The  Character  of  the  Popular  Courts 

The  organization  of,  and  procedure  in,  the  popular  courts  were 
largely  responsible  for  the  ease  with  which  the  sycophant  plied  his 
trade,  and  consequently  for  the  great  prevalence  of  the  evil.  For 
this  reason  it  seems  well  to  study  the  character  of  these  courts  in  some 
detail  at  this  point. 

One  cannot  keep  too  constantly  in  mind  the  fact  that  the  Athenian 
dicasteries  were  really  popular  mass  meetings  in  character  and  not 
austere  judicial  bodies.  "In  Athens  cases  are  tried  "h  tc3  8-q^o)," 
says  the  writer  of  the  Xenophontic  Politeia."1  This  is  practically 
true.  The  ecclesia  was  the  meeting  of  the  sovereign  people  for 
deliberative  and  legislative  purposes.  In  the  biKauT-qpiov  the  same 
sovereign  people  exercised  judicial  powers  through  their  representa- 
tives the  Sucaorcu.2 

This  representative  nature  of  the  courts  is  indicated  in  various 
ways. 

(1)  By  the  form  of  address  that  litigants  often  used:  &  'Adr^ualoi, 
co  avdpes  'AQrivaioi. 

(2)  Speakers  repeatedly  identify  the  jurors  with  the  whole 
people.     "To  enforce  these  obligations  (state  services)  you  empanel 

63  Plut.  Timol.  37.  DeVos  (p.  27)  and  Navarre  (in  Daremberg  and  Saglio, 
Did.  des  Ant.  s.  v.  Sycophante)  understand  the  statement  of  Plutarch  to  mean  that 
Simonides  made  the  comparison  between  the  tufted  lark  and  its  crest,  and  Democ- 
racy and  its  sycophant.  Bergk  Ir.  68)  assigns  to  Simonides  merely  the  state- 
ment about  the  lark.  The  language  of  the  passage  in  Plutarch  is  in  favor  of 
Bergk's  view,  and  surely  Simonides  would  have  little  occasion  to  mention  the  evil 
of  Sycophancy. 

•I.  18. 

1  De  Sanctis,  op.  cit.,  p.  250  Keil,  op.  tit.  Ill,  362. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  1 1 

juries  (<5i/caoTi7pia  wX^povre)  and  pass  sentence  of  imprisonment  upon 
the  refractory,"  is  the  statement  of  Diodorus  in  Diodorus  et  Euctemon 
vs.  Timocrates?  He  is  addressing  a  court,  but  as  the  Greek  words 
indicate,  he  regards  them  as  a  representative  gathering  of  the  whole 
people. 

(3)  An  action  taken  by  an  ecclesia  is  often  referred  to  as  the 
action  of  the  jurors  whom  the  litigant  is  addressing.  "When  you 
heard  this  you  handed  Dioclides  over  to  a  court  and  put  him  to 
death,"  says  Andocides  to  the  jurors  in  the  Mysteries.*  The  action 
of  the  ecclesia,  to  which  he  refers,  took  place  fifteen  years  before. 
But  this  does  not  prevent  the  identification  of  the  jurors  and  the 
ecclesiasts.  Whether  the  jurors  addressed  were  really  present  at 
the  meeting  of  the  ecclesia  which  the  speaker  has  in  mind  was  a 
matter  of  no  moment. 

This  passage  from  Andocides  shows  that  the  courts  were  in  effect 
committees  of  the  ecclesia,  by  means  of  which  the  people  expressed 
their  will  in  matters  that  needed  judicial  action.5 

(4)  The  8iKa<TTai  were  subject  to  no  5o/apaaia.  or  evdvuat.  "kcu 
tclvt'  avvirevdwoi  SpcofxeV  tcov  5'  a\Xa;j>  ovde/ii'  apxv-"6  They  were  not 
at  all  magistrates  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  term. 

There  was  no  examination  to  determine  the  jurors'  fitness  to 
serve.  They  were  elected  by  lot  from  the  whole  body  of  citizens 
and  the  only  requirement  was  that  they  be  thirty  years  of  age  or 
more.  None  of  the  things  that  in  our  estimation  disqualify  a  man 
from  acting  as  a  juror  prevented  an  Athenian  from  serving.7 

He  might  know  all  about  the  case  beforehand.8  In  fact  he  might 
come  to  the  court  with  his  mind  made  up  as  to  the  question  of  guilt 
or  innocence.9  He  might  even  be  a  friend  or  enemy  of  either  of  the 
litigants  and  might  have  indicated  his  attitude10  on  the  question  at 

■  Dem.  24,  92. 

4  And.  I,  66.     Cf.  Aesch.  I,  82,  85.  Dem.  20,  53,  78;  23,  65. 

•  "An  Athenian  Court  was  the  nation  in  miniature,"  Wyse,  notes  on  Isaeus 
IV,  17,  5. 

•Ar.  Wasps  587. 

'  Cf.  Bonner,  Evidence  in  Athenian  Courts,  chap.  XVII. 

•(Dem.)  40,  9,  11. 

8  Lys.  6,  54. 

10  Aesch.  I,  44;  Dem.  21,  4,  226.  In  the  case  of  a  trial  resulting  from  a  Probole 
this  was  more  natural. 


12  SYI  I'-  ATHENS 

issue.  Apparently  the  mo  I  de  irable  juror  mu  the  one  most 
familiar  with  the  <  B 

During  the  |  ;l'»-  juror-,  often  expressed  their 

approval  or  disapproval.  Appeals  for  fair  hearing  were  frequent.11 
The  plaintifl  in  Apollodorui  vs.  Stephanus  relates  how  on  one  occa- 
sion the  jurors  were  so  inflamed  against  him  by  his  opponent's  speech, 
that  they  drove  him  from  the  court  without  listening  to  him.13  This 
is  probably  not  a  typical  case.  But  the  disorder  among  the  jurors 
was  pronounced  enough  to  warrant  frequent  requests  of  m1)  Oopv&eiTe.'1* 
Plato  compares  the  hooting  and  clapping  of  the  hands  in  the  courts 
to  the  behavior  of  an  audience  in  a  theater.15  Under  such  circum- 
stances the  litigants  naturally  interrupted  one  another  with  noisy 
questions  and  protests.16 

To  check  this  turbulent  mass  meeting  was  not  in  the  power  of 
the  presiding  officer.  Neither  did  he  have  the  authority  to  force  a 
speaker  to  confine  his  remarks  to  the  main  issue.  The  result  was 
that  a  startling  amount  of  all  kinds  of  irrelevant  matter  was  brought 
into  nearly  every  case.  It  is  true  that  "a  jury  could  and  did  freely 
express  its  disapproval  of  the  argument  used  by  a  speaker  or  bade  him 
stick  to  the  question  at  hand."17  In  fact  the  Heliastic  oath  provided 
that  the  juror  vote  on  the  matter  at  issue.18  It  is  not  uncommon  to 
find  apologies  for  digressions19  or  assurances  that  the  arguments  that 
appear  to  be  digressions  are  not  really  foreign  to  the  subject.20  But 
the  only  real  restraint  on  the  evidence  that  was  brought  into  a  case 
was  the  fear  of  exciting  the  resentment  of  the  jurors.21 

11  Demosthenes  regrets  that  jurors  who  are  to  judge  the  matter  over  which  he 
is  in  dispute  with  his  guardians  are  not  familiar  with  the  case  (27.1).  Plato 
in  the  Laws  (937A)  advises  that  the  juror  who  is  familiar  with  a  case  should  become 
a  witness  and  not  vote  as  a  juror.  This  is  in  accord  with  his  other  criticisms  of  the 
Athenian  court  system. 

"Dem.  23,  1-5;  45,  1. 

11  Dem.  45,  6. 

14  Lye.  c.  Leoc.  52;  Hyp.  Lycoph.  Frag.  II;  Plat.  Apol.  20  DE;  Xen.  Apol.  14. 

»  Laws  876  B. 

"  (Dem.)  40,  61;  (25,  19)  Plato  Apol.  27  B;  Aeschines  (I,  84.)  compares  the 
noise  and  uproar  with  the  behavior  before  the  Areopagus,  where  even  laughter  is 
not  permitted. 

17  Ant.  5,  90;  5,  8;  cf.  Bonner,  Evidence,  Chap.  II,  p.  16. 

11  Dem.  24,  151. 

"•  (Dem.)  40,  50,  57,  59,  63. 

,0  Lye.  c.  Leoc.  46. 

11  Cf.  Bonner,  Evidence  p.  15. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  13 

The  irrelevant  matters  were  of  many  kinds.  A  man's  whole  life 
was  open  to  review.22  The  attack  on  a  man's  life  might  be  put  in 
general  but  exceedingly  effective  terms.  "I  cannot  tell  all  his  bad 
points  since  I  have  not  the  time."23  "His  vile  deeds  are  not  fit 
for  utterance."24  "One  cannot  live  in  the  same  house  with  men  of  his 
class."25 

Or  else  it  might  be  very  specific  and  deal  with  his  moral  charac- 
ter, political  career  or  personal  peculiarities.26  Nor  did  a  man's 
relatives  or  friends  escape  calumny.27  Even  the  witnesses  or  advo- 
cates of  the  opponent  received  their  share  of  the  abuse.28 

Defamation  of  opponents  is  naturally  accompanied  by  a  recital 
of  the  reasons  why  the  speaker  should  receive  the  jurors'  favorable 
consideration.  The  good  qualities,  political  record,  patriotic  tem- 
per, services  to  the  state,  of  the  speaker  or  his  relatives  dead  or  living 
were  rehearsed.  Reference  to  good  deeds  had  come  to  be  regarded 
as  necessary.29  Some  litigants,  in  addressing  the  jurors  refer  to  their 
faithful  performance  of  certain  duties  and  say  "In  fact  I  spent  more 
than  I  was  asked  in  order  that  I  might  stand  higher  in  your  esteem 
and,  if  I  ever  became  involved  in  a  lawsuit,  might  have  more  success 
in  my  suit."30  Even  advocates  (ffvvqyopoi)  mentioned  their  services  to 
the  state  as  reasons  for  obtaining  the  acquittal  of  their  "clients."31 

Like  all  popular  gatherings  the  jurors  were  easily  swayed  by  ap- 
peals of  various  kinds.32  They  were  especially  susceptible  to  those 
that  touched  on  their  prejudices  in  favor  of  democracy.33  It  became 
common  therefore  for  speakers  to  represent  themselves,34  their  ances- 

■  Dem.  23,  20;  32,  27.     Aesch.  1,  196. 
23  (Dem.)  40,  38. 
u  Aesch.  I,  55. 

26  Dem.  39,  57;  36,  8;  25,  32;  20,  13;  Aesch.  I,  58;  (Dem.)  40,  5. 

»Dem.  45,  63-65;  37,  33,  37-8;  36,  44-45;  39,  16-17;  24,  159;  25,  56-58; 
And.  I,  124.  Such  things  as  fast  walking,  loud  talking,  unattractive  appearance, 
carrying  a  cane  (Dem.  37,  52;  45,  77),  were  included  in  the  accusations.  On 
some  matters  the  Athenian  massmeeting  was  more  sensitive  than  the  modern. 

27  Ant.  5,  79;  Dem.  39,  27;  25,  55,  79-80;  24,  200-201;  Hyp.  IV,  31,  32. 

28  Aesch.  I,  55-56,  167,  170;  Dem.  45,  47;  24,  136-7;  (40,  58  ff.);  Lys.  12,  62  ff. 

29  Dem.  20,  76;  21,  154;  24,  127;  34,  38;  36,  36-42;  45,  85;  38,  25;  And.  I,  106. 

30  Lys.  16,  17;  25,  13;  Dem.  25,  76. 

31  Lye.  c.  Leoc.  139. 

32  Cf.  Plato  Enthyd.  290  A  K^Xrjats  .   .   .  Sik^tQu. 

33  And.  I,  4. 

34  Lys.  16,  12;  Ar.  Wasps  282-83. 


1  1  BYCOPB  INI  v  i\   \iin 

tors,  orthewitne  e  they  furnished,  as  partisans  of  the  demus  and 
belonging  i ■>  r6  vyttTtpov  irXrjOos.  It  was  equally  natural  to  picture  the 
opponents  .1  hating  democracy,'1  oligarchic  in  tastes  and  senti- 
ments," «>r  even  t<>  compare  them  with  tyrants.3'  Since  opposition 
to  democracy  was  Bynonymous  with  opposition  to  the  popular 
court-,  it  is  easy  to  see  what  effect  such  insinuations  had  on  the 
temper  of  the  juror-.'"' 

Mattery  and  complimentary  remarks  about  the  jurors  were 
I  edingly  customary.  They  were  reminded  of  the  glory  of  the  men 
from  whom  they  are  descended;41  called  "guardians  of  the  laws  and 
the  constitution;"12  they  "know  how  to  curb  even  the  most  clever 
men";11  "such  powerful  men  it  is  an  advantage  to  have  as  assistants 
and  friends";"  "their  fairness  and  justice"  are  admirable.45  When 
mistakes  of  the  jurors  must  be  mentioned  they  were  explained,  most 
often,  as  resulting  from  "deception."46 

Appeals  to  the  prejudice  and  passion  of  the  jurors  were  common. 
Defendants  are  said  to  put  themselves  above  the  laws  of  the  state;47 
to  be  trying  to  rescind  what  a  dicastery  once  decided;43  to  be  insulting 
the  ecclesia  and  the  courts.49  Or  the  jurors  are  warned  that  their 
powers  are  in  danger;50  that  they  have  a  villain  at  their  mercy;51 
that  god  has  endeavored  to  give  them  "a  chance  at"  the  wrong- 

86  And.  I,  106. 

39  Dem.  21,  96;  Plato  A  pel.  21  A. 

37  Ar.  Wasps  474-5.     Lys.  25,  7. 

»•  Dem.  24,  57,  76,  78,  87,  90,  154,  164. 

»•  Cf.  Ar.  Wasps  488  ff.     And.  I,  101. 

"Ar.  Wasps  411  ff.;  474. 

"Lye.  c.  Leoc.  127,  cf.  119,  110. 

"  Dem.  24,  2,  37;  21,  92,  224-25. 

«  Dem.  30,  14;  Hyp.  Ill,  23;  Ar.  Wasps  258. 

"Dem.  45,  85;  Ant.  I,  22. 

«  And.  I,  9,  91;  Dem.  32,  21-23;  Hyp.  IV,  33  ff.,  36,  38. 

"Dem.  21,  160;  20,  98;  22,  46;  (40,  55);  Plato  Laws  938  B;  Lye.  c.  Leoc.  79, 
139;  Ar.  Knights  1345;  Aesch.  I,  93,  117;  Dem.  22,  96-97;  Cf.  Ar.  Wasps  900  ff., 
where  Philoclcon  says  of  the  dog  that  is  to  be  tried  " itairarifftiv  m'  oUrai." 

"  Dem.  35,  54. 

«•  Ibid.  24,  73. 

"Ibid.  21,  193,  197  ff. 

"Ibid.  21  2. 

61  Lye.    c.  Leoc.  91.     Dem.  24.  205. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  15 

doer;52  that  they  have  been  wronged  and  now  have  an  opportunity 
for  vengeance.53 

The  ordinary  8iKaarai  whose  main  source  of  income54  was  the 
rpikfidhov  could  not  fail  to  be  aroused  by  appeals  that  touched  their 
prejudice  against  rich  men.55  Litigants  therefore  found  it  to  their 
interest  to  represent  their  opponents  as  wealthy  and  themselves  as 
suffering  from  poverty  or  at  least  in  moderate  circumstances.56  When 
men  who  were  undoubtedly  wealthy  were  on  trial  the  plaintiffs  often 
argued  that  conviction  was  the  jurors'  advantage.  One  man  com- 
plains of  the  disadvantage  under  which  he  labors  in  being  compelled 
to  defend  himself  at  a  time  when  state  funds  are  low.57 

Direct  requests  for  pity  were  so  common  that  the  failure  to  beg  for 
the  jurors'  compassion  was  regarded  as  a  sign  of  antagonism  towards 
the  popular  courts  and  their  methods.58  Defendants  even  wept 
before  the  court.59  Hardened  criminals  were  said  to  be  able  to  shed 
tears  in  court  when  occasion  demanded.60  Introduction  of  women 
and  children  to  move  the  jurors  to  pity  by  their  pleas  and  tears  was 
common.61  Even  the  advocates  were  expected  to  plead  for  com- 
passion toward  their  "clients."62 

One  is  not  justified  in  concluding  that  this  situation  rendered  all 
trials  unfair  or  all  decisions  unjust.  But  these  irrelevant  matters 
made  it  extremely  difficult  for  the  average  juror  to  base  his  verdict 
on  the  real  issue  as  his  oath  required  him  to  do.  In  the  words  of  the 
Xenophontic  Socrates  "  Do  you  not  see  that  the  Athenian  dicasteries 
frequently  become  enraged  and  put  innocent  men  to  death  and 
frequently  acquit  those  guilty  of  wrong,  moved  to  pity  by  their  pleas 

62  Dem.  56,  47;  Lye.  c.  Leoc.  134. 

"  Dem.  24,  90;  20,  34;  21,  7-8,  66,  209  ff.;  23,  100;  35,  56. 

"Isoc.  8.130,  cf.   7.54. 

MIsoc.  15,  160. 

MLyc.  c.  Leoc.  150;  Dem.  36,  58;  45,  66  ff.;  Hyp.  Ill,  32,  35;  Dem.  21,  209; 
27,  53;  Dem.  20,  24;  Ar.  Knights  1360,  Wasps  287  ff.;  627-28. 

"Lys.  19,  11.  Cf.  Ibid.  28,3. 

69  Plato  Apol.  34  C-E. 

69  For  instances  in  which  the  speakers  begged  for   pity    vid.    Lye.   <. 
150;  And.  2,  6-7;  Ar.  Wasps  556,  564,  967-977;  Dem.  21,  213;  38,  19-21;  27,  68. 

11  Dem.  39,  35;  38,  27.  "Even  rascals  like  Pantaenetus  will  weep  and 
lament"  (Dem.  37,  48.). 

61  Dem.  21,  99,  186;  25,  83-84;  Plat.)  Laws  94')  A;  Ar.  Wasps  568  ff.;  cf.  Plato 
Apology  supra.  Aristophanes  ridicules  this  habit  very  effectively  in  the  Wasps 
(976)  by  representing  the  whelps  of  the  dog  that  is  on  trial  whining  and  begging 
for  his  life. 

•2  Dem.  21,  83;  Lye.  c.  Leoc.  135;  Dem.  36,  57;  Dem.  37.48. 


If.  BYCOPH 

oi   by   their  eloquent    speei  hi  \nd   in   the    P 

thai  nut  Meletus  or  Anytus  will  convict 
him  it  he  is  convicted,  but  the  envy  and  slander  of  the  many,      i 
which  has  convicted   many  other  good   men  will  not  fail    to  convict 
many  others.     There  is  no  danger  thai  it  will  stop  in  his  case.04 

Criticisms  of  the  courts  by  contemporary  writers  were  not  unu- 
sual. Plato  advocates  thai  the  popular  courts  be  given  jurisdiction 
over  matters  of  very  slight  importance.       H  ests  a  remedy  for 

the  evils  of  the  Athenian  system  by  proposing  the  organization  of  a 
"supreme  court"  the  members  of  which  should  he  subject  to  dokima- 

and  liable  for  trial  if  accusation  of  unjust  decision  is  brought 
against  them.98  This  might  have  been  an  effective  remedy.  As  it 
was  the  jurors  were  sovereigns  and  subject  to  no  dokimasia  or  eu- 
thynae  as  magistrates  were. 

Isocrates  in  the  Antidosis  quotes  at  length  the  opinion  of  a  pessi- 
mistic friend  who  had  tried  to  dissuade  him  from  a  recital  of  his  good 
deeds  before  the  jurors.  "Some  of  them  are  so  savage  because  of 
their  envy  and  poverty,  and  are  so  peevishly  disposed  that  they 
object  not  to  villany  but  to  a  good  career,  and  hate  not  only  the  most 
moderate  citizens  but  the  best  pursuits.  This  is  bad  enough.  But 
they  even  join  the  side  of  wrong-doers  who  are  on  trial  and  pardon 
them  while  they  put  to  death  those  whom  they  envy,  if  they  can."67 
This  is  no  doubt  overdrawn,  but  the  whole  Antidosis  is  full  of  criti- 
cisms that  are  less  exaggerated. 

The  undue  appeals  to  the  passions  that  are  made  in  the  courts 
are  criticised  by  Aristotle.  "For  it  is  not  right  that  an  orator  should 
bias  the  judge  by  winning  him  on  to  anger  or  pity  or  jealousy;  since 
that  is  as  absurd  as  it  would  be  to  make  a  ruler,  that  one  expected 
to  use,  crooked."68 

The  writer  of  the  Xenophontic  Politeia  characterizes  the  Atheni- 
ans in  the  courts  as  "concerned  in  what  is  just  no  more  than  in  what 
is  advantageous  to  them."69 

Even  the  orators  give  expression  to  direct  criticisms,  especially 
on  the  use  of  irrelevant  matter.     The  popular  courts  are  compared 

M  Xen.  Apology  4. 
•*  28  A. 

M  Lius  876  AB. 
••  Ibid.  767  C-E. 
■  IS,  142. 
"Rhet.  1. 

89  I,    It. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  1  7 

with  the  Areopagus  where  even  laughter  is  not  permitted  and  where 
the  chances  of  wandering  from  the  main  subject  were  comparatively 
slight.70  "Neither  should  a  man's  good  deeds  save  him  from  con- 
demnation if  guilty,  nor  his  evil  deeds  apart  from  the  charge  against 
him  condemn  him  if  innocent."71 

The  plays  of  Aristophanes72  teem  with  criticisms,  more  or  less 
exaggerated,  of  the  courts.  One  play,  the  Wasps,  is  entirelv  devoted 
to  a  satire  of  the  judicial  system.  The  jurors  are  represented  as 
wasps  ready  to  fasten  their  stings  of  condemnation  in  the  defendants. 
Litigants  are  careful  not  to  irritate  the  wasp  nest.73  Stinging  is 
part  of  their  business.74  The  carefree,  irresponsible  attitude  of  the 
jurors  and  the  whole  nature  of  the  court  is  well  caricatured,  if  not 
described  in  Philocleon's  eulogy  on  the  jurors'  "Happy  Life."75 

"Then  when  I  have  entered  the  court  room,  after  being  entreated 
and  having  my  anger  wiped  away,  I  perform  none  of  all  these  things 
that  I  promised;  but  I  listen  to  them  uttering  all  their  eloquence  for 
an  acquittal.  Come  let  me  see;  what  piece  of  flattery  is  it  not  pos- 
sible for  a  dicast  to  hear  there?  Some  lament  their  poverty,  and 
add  ills  to  their  real  ones  until  by  grieving  they  make  theirs  equal 
to  mine;  others  tell  us  stories  from  the  myths,  others  some  joke 
from  Aesop;  others  again  play  some  funny  pranks  that  I  may  laugh 
and  lay  aside  my  wrath.  .  .  And  if  Oeagrus76  enters  court  as  a  defen- 
dant he  does  not  get  off  until  he  recites  us  a  passage  from  the  Niobe, 
the  most  beautiful  that  he  can  find.  And  if  a  flute-player  gains  his 
suit,  as  our  fee  for  this  he  plays  a  finale  for  us  dicasts,  as  we  Leave 
the  court,  with  his  mouth-piece  on.  .  .  Do  I  not  hold  a  great 
empire  and  one  in  no  way  inferior  to  that  of  Zeus,  I  who  have  the 
same  title  as  Zeus?  At  any  rate  if  we  jurors  make  an  uproar77  each 
of  the  passers-by  says  'Lord  Zeus,  how  the  court  thunders!'  " 

Before  these  popular  courts  the  sycophant  had  a  distinct  advan- 
tage over  his  victim.  Mere  accusation  against  a  man  was  enough  to 
prejudice  the  jurors,  who  regarded  the  whole  proceeding  from  a  per- 

'"Aesch.  1,  84. 

71  Ant.  5,  11.     Bonner,  Evidence  Chap.  II.     Cf.  Dem.  20,  166. 

72  Aristophanes  was  by  no  means  an  impartial  critic  of  Athenian  democratic 
ideals.     Vid.  p.  18. 

73  399,  1101. 
7<  1113,  1121. 

76  559-567;  578-582;  620-625. 
7*  A  tragic  actor. 

77  622  Oopv0T)autitv;  cf.  fii)  OopvfitiTt  (Plato  Apol.). 


IS  BYCOPH  ■■■■■<  1   i'-   \  i  m 

iona]  standpoint.  Defendants  keenly  felt  that  the  odds  were 
■i  i  them.     The  plaintiffs  who  were  in  no  d  lid  state  any- 

thing they  wished,  while  the  defendants  in  their  fear  forgol  even  the 
good  deeds  they  tnighl  menti<  a.'1  Philocleon,  who  is  pictured  by 
V  tophanes  a-  a  typical  juror,  in  the  trial  of  the  Dog  de<  ides  against 
the  defendant  before  both  sides  are  heard;79  refuses  to  believe  the 
defence;*0  lias  mine  to  courl  with  "condemnation  in  his  eye;"81 
hates  to  realize  thai  he  is  beginning  to  feel  a  little  compassion  for 
the  defendant;81  and  finally  faints  from  the  shock  when  he  learns 
that  he  has,  by  mistake,  acquitted  a  "man  on  trial."83  For  such  an 
act  he  doubts  if  the  gods  will  forgive  him.M  The  sycophant  as  the 
first  speaker,  could  paint  his  opponent  as  bad  as  he  desired.  He 
was  familiar  with  the  appeals  to  which  the  jurors  were  most  sus- 
ceptible and  could  use  them  to  good  effect. 

This  situation  made  it  relatively  easy  for  the  sycophant  to  levy 
blackmail.  Few  of  those  whom  he  threatened  with  prosecution 
would  care  to  risk  trial  before  this  turbulent  mass  meeting  so  easily 
swayed  by  appeals  to  passion,  prejudice,  self-interest,  power  and  pity. 

In  spite  of  the  blackness  of  this  picture  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  purpose  of  this  section  on  the  nature  of  the  Courts  is  not  to 
prove  that  justice  was  impossible  in  Athens.  That  would  of  course 
be  untrue.  It  is  however  necessary  to  keep  in  mind  the  possibilities 
of  the  miscarriage  of  justice.  No  one  would  pretend  to  take  all  that 
Aristophanes  says  in  satire  of  the  democracy  as  representing  the 
actual  situation.  However,  he  cannot  be  very  far  from  the  real  con- 
dition. His  description  usually  contains  just  enough  exaggeration 
to  make  it  humorous.  He  would  be  a  very  poor  artist  indeed  if  he 
misrepresented  circumstances  in  Athens  to  any  great  extent.  One 
of  the  chief  reasons  for  assuming  that  his  criticism,  and  the  biased 
statements  of  litigants,  are  not  far  from  the  truth,  is  the  generally 
accepted  contrast  between  the  Areopagus  and  the  other  courts. 

The  situation  has  been  well  described  by  Wyse.85  "There  is  no 
evidence  that  the  Athenian  judges  were  often  bribed  or  terrorized  or 

78  Hyp.  I,  8.  cf.  Ar.  Wasps  878. 

79  Ar.  Wasps   920. 

80  Ibid.  966. 

81  Ibid.  847-50. 
8:  Ibid.  973. 

83  Ibid.  1000. 

"Ibid.  1001-2. 

■  Whibley,  Comp.  to  Greek  Studies,  3rd  ed.  476. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  19 

intentionally  dishonest.  Neither  did  the  discretion  granted  them  in 
the  absence  of  a  statute  become  an  instrument  of  oppression.  This 
danger,  though  real  enough,  was  diminished  by  the  number  and  repre- 
sentative character  of  the  judges,  who  were  not  likely  to  treat  as 
criminal,  acts  tolerated  by  public  opinion.  But  the  speeches  of  the 
orators  are  a  convincing  proof,  if  proof  be  needed,  of  the  vices  inherent 
in  such  a  system.  The  amount  of  injustice  done  cannot  now  be 
estimated,  but  it  is  sufficient  condemnation  of  the  courts,  that 
appeals  to  passion  and  political  prejudice,  insinuating  sophistry,  and 
outrageous  misrepresentations  of  law  were  judged  by  shrewd  and 
experienced  observers  suitable  means  to  win  a  verdict.  No  devel- 
opment of  law  was  possible;  nothing  excited  the  suspicion  and  mis- 
trust of  the  judges  so  much  as  a  display  of  legal  subtlety.  .  .  The 
conclusions  of  a  court  were  bare  affirmations  or  negations,  not  dis- 
criminating between  law  and  fact,  applicable  only  to  a  particular 
case  and  based  on  reasons  which  were  known  only  (o  the  individual 
voters,  and  perhaps  not  always  to  them.  And  these  decisions,  such 
as  they  were,  could  not  bind  another  court,  for  in  theory  and  practice 
the  courts  were  equal  and  independent,  each  being  a  committee  of 
the  sovereign  people  supreme  and  irresponsible." 

The  Prevalence  of  Sycophancy 
Indications  of  the  great  prevalence  of  sycophancy  are  numerous 
in  the  plays  of  Aristophanes.  An  incident  that  illustrates  very  well 
the  omnipresence  of  the  watchful  ''informer"  is  found  in  the  Achar- 
nians.1  The  Megarian  has  just  arranged  a  trade  with  Dicaeopolis. 
Then  the  sycophant  appears  with  his  "<pavco  ra8l  iroXk/jLia  koX  ok." 
In  utter  disgust  the  Megarian  bursts  out,  "tovt'  hcetv',  Ikh  iraXiv 
Wtvxtp  apxa  tcqp  kclkuv  aiuv  hpv"  The  first  two  words  are  enough  to 
describe  the  situation,  "tovt'  knew."  "There  it  is."  The  expected, 
the  dreaded  had  happened.  A  subsequent  episode  in  the  same 
play  shows  the  abundance  of  these  men  in  Athens.2  A  Boeotian 
brings  some  choice  Copaic  eels  to  the  market  of  Dicaeopolis  and 
wants  goods  in  return.  Dicaeopolis  offers  him  anchovies  and  crock- 
ery. "No.  Give  me  something  that  we  can't  get  at  home."  And 
Dicaeopolis  has  no  doubts  about  what  Athens  has  and  Boeolia  has 
not.  At  once  he  replies:  "I  know  just  the  thing.  Bring  out  a 
sycophant." 

1  818  fT. 

1  903-4. 


20  BYCOFB  .  hii.n'S 

Aristophanes  is  fond  of  playing  on  the  meaning  of  words  that 
i  ,m  be  i  ,,iiii«(  ted  in  Bense  or  et)  mology  with  either  of  the  I  wo  parts  of 
(rvKOifxuntiv.     Pui  i,  a  legal  process  much  used  by  sycophants 

osl  those  \vh<>  were  alleged  to  have  contraband  goods  in  their 

n,  and  the  river  'l-a™  were  particularly  effective.    One  of 

I     aeopolis'  markel  rules  iskvravda  nyT*  oi'Ko<pat>Tw  eiaLrw  ^r    aXXos 

5aru  ^aoiavb%  tar'  avr\p?     A   similar  pun  occurs  in  the  Birds  where 

Peisthetaerus  admits  thai  he   is  fturiamos.     " From  Phasis"  applies 

idingly  well  to  Athens  the  "land  of  information 

Numerous  al  o  are  the  puns  on  word-  thai  suggest  a  resemblance, 
mar  or  remote,  to  the  substantival  part  of  the  term  (ot/kov).  In  the 
Wasps  Philocleon  is  trying  to  get  out  of  his  house  in  order  to  join  his 
fellow  di<  asts  on  their  way  to  court.  He  is  represented  as  resorting  to 
all  sorts  of  methods.  One  is  to  go  out  of  the  chimney  as  "smoke." 
"What  kind  of  smoke?"  asks  his  son.  "Figwood"  (avuivov)  is  the  an- 
swer.5 And  later  on  at  the  trial  of  the  dog  it  is  decided  that  if  he  is 
found  guilty  he  shall  receive  a  "collar  of  'fig- wood'  "  as  his  punish- 
ment.6 

Aristophanes  was  not  the  only  comic  poet  who  ridiculed  the 
sycophants.  Cratinus'  "My  Lady  Bribery  of  the  Fig-sandal" 
(Au'poi  (TVKoire5i\e)  was  a  favorite  song  at  banquets.7 

3  Achat.  725-6.     This  has  been  cleverly  translated  by  Walsh. 
"Here  let  no  base  informer  dare  to  come 
Nor  any  other  man  from  Quibbleford." 
This  brings  out  the  pun  on  Athens  as  "Quibbletown,"  and  the  river  Phasis. 

In  the  Knights  (1256),  Demosthenes  asks  the  Sausage  Seller  if  he  may  be  his 
"Phanus"  or  secretary  of  indictments. 
•68. 

6  145. 

7-8.  Cf.  Plutas  946,  where  the  sycophant  think?  he  will  feel  safe  if  he 
finds  a  companion  of  "figwood"  (i.  e.,  a  club  made  of  figwood.).  As  a  thrust  at 
the  sycophant,  Aristophanes  evolved  one  of  his  best  comic  compounds.  Bde- 
lucleoD  {Wasps  505)  says  that  he  wants  to  make  his  father  live  the  life  of  a  gentle- 
man and  be  freed  from  "these  early-rising-base-informing  sad  litigious  plaguy 
Ways,"  6p$oifoiToavKOi^ai,To5iKOTa\aiir6}pcjv  rpoTrwv. 

One  of  the  best  indications  of  the  readiness  to  suspect  men  as  guilty  of 
sycophancy  is  found  in  the  Plutiis  (970).  Chremylus  has  just  disposed  of  a 
sycophant,  when  in  comes  an  old  woman  lamenting  loudly  as  the  sycophant  had 
done.  "Now  what's  the  matter  here?"  he  asks  in  comic  despair,  "are  you  by 
any  chance  a  "sveophantress"?  ^,  xoC  nal  av  crvKOipavrpia.  The  Scholiast's  ex- 
planation that  this  is  equivalent  to  asking  if  she  is  ironjpd  lacks  point. 

7  Knights  52').  This  involves  a  parody  on  the  Homeric  "llpv  xpwojreitX* 
with  the  ever  present  pun  on  aixovavrris.     Vid.  Rogers'  note  ad  loc. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  21 

Much  of  Aristophanes'  satire  on  the  evils  of  the  day  is,  no  doubt, 
exaggerated.  One  cannot  suppose  that  the  situation  is  exactly  as 
bad  as  he  paints  it.  But  after  making  due  allowance  for  exaggera- 
tion, there  is  every  reason  for  believing  that  his  constant  ridicule  of 
sycophants  would  have  had  no  dramatic  value  if  sycophancy  had  not 
been  a  prominent  and  well  recognized  evil  in  Athens. 

We  are  not  compelled  to  depend  upon  Aristophanes  alone  for 
information  about  the  prevalence  of  sycophancy.  Evidence  of  every 
sort  is  common  in  the  orators. 

Prosecutors  constantly  attempt  to  convince  jurors  that  they  have 
personal  motives  for  bringing  suit.  This  is  due  to  the  fear  that  they 
may  be  regarded  as  sycophants  or,  at  least,  as  unduly  litigious.  The 
satisfaction  of  a  personal  grudge  by  means  of  litigation  was  con- 
sidered a  proper  proceeding  in  Athens.  "For  what  one  hears  in 
public  cases  is  certainly  true,  'that  personal  or  private  enmities  recti- 
fy many  public  wrongs.'  "8  The  necessity  of  making  this  usual 
introduction  is  indicated  by  Lysias  in  his  accusation  of  Eratosthenes.9 
He  asserts  that  "formerly  accusers  had  to  show  what  their  private 
enmity  was  against  the  defendants."  Although  he  seems  to  suggest 
that  the  situation  had  changed  and  other  things  were  so  necessary 
that  this  was  no  longer  done,  he  cleverly  lets  the  jurors  know  that  he 
has  personal  reasons  by  saying,  "  Not  that  I  have  no  private  grudges." 
Even  the  unqualified  protests  against  the  custom  of  urging  private 
motives  for  a  prosecution,  to  which  expression  is  occasionally  given, 
are  equally  instructive  as  to  the  prevalence  of  the  practice.10 

Sometimes  a  speaker  assures  the  court  that  he  is  not  a  sycophant. 
"I  am  not  acting  as  a  sycophant  in  introducing  this  aTroypapr},"  is  the 
introduction  made  by  the  litigious  Apollodorus  in  one  of  his  prosecu- 
tions.11 So  Trygaeus,  the  hero  of  the  Peace,  on  Heaven's  threshold 
answers  the  question  as  to  who  he  is,  by  the  assurance  that  he  is  "no 
sycophant  or  lover  of  lawsuits."12  It  would  be  fatal  to  his  mission 
to  be  mistaken  for  that  undesirable  type  of  Athenian. 

The  majority  of  speakers,  however,  content  themselves  with  a 
protestation  that  they  are  not  litigious.  The  implication  that  they 
are  not  sycophants  would  be  plain.      "I  am  not  ipikoitpayii^v  but 

8  Aesch.  1,  2. 
•Lys.  12,  2-3. 

10  Vid.  Lye.  c.  Lcoc.  6;  Dem.  23,  1;  Lys.  31,  2. 

11  Dem.  53,  1. 

12  Ar.  Peace  191. 


22  BYCOPB  Mill.NS 

hnpayiJiui-."    "It  is  with  qo  mere  fondness  for  litigation  that  I  have 
brought  this  suit";"  "I  have  never  brought  a  public  suit  a 
citizen,  gentlemen  of  Athens,  uor  have  I  harrassed  anyone  when  he 
ing  hi-  accounts,  but  in  respect  of  all  of  these  things  I  have 
conducted  myself,  in  my  opinion,  as  a  good  eiti/.en  should";M  "I 

have  tried  every  method  possible  in  order  to  come  to  terms  with  the 

defendant,  so  as  to  avoid  using  the  courts,  and  I  come  here  as  a  last 
resort."1* 

Occasionally  the  prosecutor  is  not  content  to  show  that  he  has 
lived  a  life  of  air pay fioavvrj ,  by  asserting  that  he  has  not  worried 
others  with  Lawsuits.  He  couples  with  this  the  assurance  that  his 
life  is  such  a  peaceful  one  that  no  one  has  ever  brought  suit  against 
him."'' 

An  exceedingly  frequent  method  of  describing  one's  unfamiliarity 
with  the  courts  is  to  picture  one's  helplessness  and  inability  to  make  a 
good  speech  or  to  plead  well.  "  I  am  so  far  from  being  able  to  speak 
about  what  it  is  fitting  that  I  should,  that  I  am  afraid  that  I  shall 
find  myself  unable  to  speak  even  about  what  I  am  compelled  to 
speak."17 

The  charge  of  sycophancy  against  the  other  side  is  a  common 
means  of  averting  suspicion  from  oneself.  A  man  so  branded  was 
at  a  disadvantage:  "I  am  unexpectedly  fallen  upon  charges  and 
villanous  sycophants";18  "not  as  a  sycophant  have  I  brought  this 
suit,  but  because  I  was  myself  vexatiously  prosecuted";19  "My 
opponent  is  an  exceedingly  clever  speaker  and  very  familiar  with 
the  courts";  "all  his  life  is  spent  in  the  courts";20  "the  case  against 
me  has  been  'trumped  up'  ";21  "the  case  has  been  brought  for  mon- 
ey."" 

"Dem.  30,  1. 

M  Aesch.  1,  1. 

»  Dcm.  30,  1  ff.,  cf.  Lys.  32,  1-2. 

"With  no  desire  to  gain  the  money  of  others  unjustly,  have  I  brought  this 
suit,"  says  the  speaker  in  the  Trapezitkus  (Isoc.  17.1.).  "I  have  enough  money 
even  if  I  lose  the  suit."  The  desire  to  avoid  the  charge  of  sycophancy  is  strong 
indeed  to  make  a  litigant  confess  that  he  has  money. 

"•  Dem.  24,  6;  Lys.  12,  3;  19,  55.     Dem.  34,  1. 

"Lys.  17,  1;  Dem.  21,  141. 

"Lys.  7,  1;  (Dem.)  40,  5,  12,  16,  32,  43,  53.  That  the  accused  in  this  case 
is  a  professional  sycophant  does  not  damage  the  value  of  the  statements. 

"  Aesch.     1,  1.  avrdt  i5t'p  avno<fai>TovntPos. 

*°  Dem.  22,  4;  23,  206;  vid.  also  Plato  Apol.  17  BC. 

11  And.  1,  117;  sec.  1-7  are  t6toi  of  this  nature  also.     Dem.  24,  1. 

»  Ant.  5,  59,  79. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  23 

Doubtless  the  most  instructive  passage  on  the  prevalence  of 
sycophancy  and  on  the  attitude  of  the  bulk  of  the  Athenians  toward 
it  is  found  in  the  Antidosis  of  Isocrates.  In  his  old  age  the  orator 
feels  the  necessity  of  writing  a  defense  of  his  life  and  teaching.  The 
plan  that  he  chooses  for  this  defence  is  significant.23  "I  saw  that  if 
I  should  endeavor  to  praise  myself,  I  should  find  myself  unable  to 
include  everything  that  I  had  set  out  to  discuss,  and  that  I  should  not 
succeed  in  speaking  pleasingly  nor  fail  to  incur  envy.  But  if  I  should 
represent  myself  as  involved  in  a  lawsuit  and  in  danger,  and  represent 
the  one  who  had  brought  the  suit  against  me,  and  was  causing  me  the 
trouble,  as  a  sycophant  who  employed  the  same  slanders  that  were 
used  against  me  in  the  antidosis  case,  and  if,  further,  I  should  repre- 
sent myself  as  speaking  in  the  form  of  a  defense,  I  saw  that  in  this  way 
it  would  be  possible  for  me  to  talk  most  easily  about  anything  that  I 
might  happen  to  want  to  discuss."  This  speech  was  not  intended 
for  delivery  in  the  courts,  but  for  publication.  This  makes  the 
statement  more  valuable.  Not  all  the  accusations  of  sycophancy 
made  by  litigants  in  the  court  room  can  be  taken  seriously.  Their 
statements  are  ex  parte.  But  the  use  of  the  sycophant  motif 
in  this  speech  by  Isocrates,  indicates  that  those  of  the  reading  public 
into  whose  hands  the  airoXoyla  would  fall,  were  sure  to  receive  with 
sympathetic  interest  an  autobiography  that  represented  its  author 
as  a  much  abused  citizen  hounded  by  a  sycophant. 

Since  sycophancy  had  become  such  a  disease  it  is  not  surprising 
that  some  conservative  and  anti-democratic  Athenians  preferred  to 
live  away  from  the  city.  This  would  be  especially  true  of  the  wealthy 
ones  who  were  in  greater  danger  from  the  sycophants.  Diognetus, 
the  brother  of  Nicias  was  beset  so  much  by  sycophants  that  he  left 
the  city.24  Some  citizens  possessed  estates  in  Thrace  and  resided 
there  to  be  rid  of  the  litigation  and  worry  of  Athens.25  In  the 
Knights  Cleon  is  represented  as  endeavoring  to  bring  such  men 
back  to  Athens  and  involve  them  in  lawsuits.  "And  if  you  know 
of  some  one  who  is  living  a  peaceful  life,  free  from  lawsuits  and  who 
is  a  dullard,  you  bring  him  back  from  the  Chersonese,  catch  him 
around  the  middle,  nip  him  in  the  hook  of  your  arm,  then  wrench 
his  shoulder  and — bolt  him."25     Charmides   in   the    Symposium    of 

"  Isoc.  15,  8. 
"Lysias  18,  9. 

25  Ar.  Knights  261  (Merry.)  Cf.  Frere's  notes  ad  loc;  Ant.  5.  78;  Ar. 
Wasps  281.     Van  Leeuwen  takes  this  to  refer  to  a  rich  cleruch. 


2  I  BYCOPH  v.'  \   r-    ITH1 

Xenophon,*6  congratulates  himself  on  bis  poverty,  because  it  freed 
him  from  the  persecution    of  ili<-  qui  ycophants  who  beset 

him  \\1h  n  In'  was  wealthy.  "Then  I  i  ompelled  to  fawn  on  them 
for  exceedingly  good  reasons.  I  was  always  being  appointed  to 
rvice  by  the  state,  and  was  never  able  to  get  away  from 
Atlun  ."  I  i  dom  from  attacks  by  sycophants  is  regarded  by 
Plutarch  a-  one  of  the  consolations  for  banishment.** 

The  whole  plot  of  the  Birds  centers  about  the  desire  of  two  con- 
mt\  ative  Athenians  to  get  away  from  Litigious  Athens  and  spend  their 
days  quietly.  Of  course,  this  is  not  direct  proof  that  Athenians  in 
any  great  numbers  did  look  for  a  towov  an pay pova  in  actual  life.29 
Bui  taJ  en  tOg<  ther  with  the  other  reference-  to  the  habit  it  is  corrob- 
orative evidei 

Sycophancy  had  grown  until  it  had  become  a  profession  in 
Athens.  Epichares,  one  of  those  in  the  cabal  against  Andocides, 
i-  accused  of  having  lived  by  sycophancy  under  the  democracy.30 
There  must  have  been  a  considerable  number  of  such  professionals, 
since  the  first  attack  of  the  Thirty  was  made  against  those  who  made 
a  living  by  the  methods  of  sycophants.31  When  Praxagora  tells  her 
husband  that  under  the  new  situation,  with  women  in  control  of  the 
government,  he  shall  no  longer  be  permitted  to  play  the  sycophant, 
he  cries  out  "Oh!  by  heaven.  Don't  do  that.  Don't  take  away 
my  life  and  livelihood."32 

There  are  good  reasons  for  believing  that  the  profession  of  syco- 
phant was  handed  down  from  father  to  son  in  some  families.  The 
sycophant  that  makes  his  appearance  in  Nephelococcygia  knows  of 
no  way  to  make  his  living  except  by  his  pettifoggery.  He  refuses 
to  learn  any  more  honest  occupation.     That  would  be  to  shame  his 

«  IV,  30. 

::  Clearly  he  does  not  mean  merely  that  his  liturgies  kept  him  from  the 
pleasures  of  travel.  The  force  of  the  /cai  yap  &ri  koI  and  of  the  p&  and  5«  of  the  follow- 
ing clauses  shows  that  the  airo5rnji(ti',  if  it  had  been  within  his  power  to  indulge  in  it, 
would  have  been  a  method  of  relieving  himself  of  the  necessity  of  "fawning"  on 
the  sycophants. 

»De  ExUlo  11.  (Didot  Vol.  I,  729.) 

28  At.  Birds  U. 

so  And.  1,99. 

31  Xen.  Hdlen.  II.  3,  12.  Sycophants  are  blamed  for  the  war  (Achar.  820) 
and  the  revolt  of  the  allies  (Lys.  25.  19;  Isoc.  15,  316-18).  This  implies  that  there 
were  very  many. 

M  Ar.  Red.  562-3  ^5'  dy-f\jj  p.ov  tov  Jiov. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  25 

family.  The  profession  of  sycophant  has  been  in  his  family  for 
several  generations  and  it  would  mean  disgrace  to  give  it  up.33 

To  anyone  but  the  extreme  democrat  the  sycophants  must  have 
been  /3apets.34  There  is  little  reason  for  wonder  that  the  Thirty 
made  their  first  attack  on  democracy  by  ridding  the  state  of  those 
who  made  a  profession  of  sycophancy.34  In  regard  to  this  measure 
there  was  apparently  unanimity  of  opinion  among  the  tyrants. 
Theramenes,  who  was  always  regarded  the  most  moderate  of  the  body, 
in  his  defence  of  his  opposition  to  their  extreme  cruelties,  says, 
"  While  you  put  out  of  the  way  those  who  were  confessedly  sycophants 
we  were  all  of  the  same  mind."35  Aristotle  says  that  the  city  was 
delighted  with  the  first  measures  of  the  Thirty;  "the  execution  of  the 
sycophants  and  others  who  were  KaKorpa.jfj.oves  Kal  ■Kovrfpol."  People 
thought  that  the  Thirty  were  acting  for  the  good  of  the  state.36 

Many  an  Athenian  would  undoubtedly  agree  with  the  Megarian 
in  the  Acharnians:  "olov  to  Kawv  h  rols  'Adrjuats  tout'  m."37 

No  better  statement  of  the  situation  that  had  been  brought  about 
by  the  prevalence  of  sycophants  can  be  found  than  the  words  of  the 
orator  Lycurgus.  "Things  have  now  come  to  such  a  pass,  that  the 
man  who  undergoes  personal  risk  and  incurs  hatred  for  the  sake 
of  the  state,  gets  the  reputation  of  being  not  <pl\6tto\i.s  but  <pi\oirpay- 
fjLuv."38  The  situation  had  changed  since  the  days  of  Pericles,  when  a 
man  who  was  airpa.-yp.o3v  was  regarded  as  a  useless  citizen.39 

33 Ar.    Birds.    1432  ft.;  1451    IT.   Cf.    Miiller-Strubing,   Aristoph.   u.   die   Hist. 
Kritik.  p.  326  5.,  for  the  same  view.     Cf.  Ar.  Frogs  1146-49. 
"Hell.  II,  3,  12. 
35  Ibid.  II,  3,  38. 
u  Const,  of  Athens.  35,  3. 

87  Ar.  Acfiar.  829. 

88  Lye.  c.  LeoL.  3. 

89  Thucy.  2.  40. 


CHAPTER  II 
I  in  Activities  ind  Methods  ox  Sycoph  ints 
The  Sycophant  as  Litigant 

Although   the  provision  of  e^tluai  rui  (3ov\onii>u)  ypa<pecrda.i  laid  the 

whole  range  of  public  suits  open  to  the  sycophant,  he  would  natur- 
ally prefer  such  as  yielded  him  money  If  he  was  successful.     These 

were  (1)  (/?d(m    (2)  airoypcupr]   (3)  ypa.(pr)  £ev'ias. 

<fk(ji%.  This  is  defined  as  "the  action  brought  against  those  who 
contravened  the  laws  relating  to  trade,  the  customs,  mining,  and  also 
againsl  guardians  who  had  either  omitted  altogether  to  invest  their 
wards'  fortunes  or  had  made  a  had  investment."  In  case  of  successful 
prosecution,  the  plaintiff  received  one-half  of  the  amount  of  property 
confiscated  or  of  the  fine  levied.1 

The  most  common  v'daeis  seem  to  have  dealt  with  matters  of 
trade  and  commerce,  and  our  information  about  their  use  in  such 
cases  is  more  accurate  than  in  the  others.2  The  procedure  was  used 
against  those  who  carried  goods  contrary  to  law  to  some  non-Athenian 
market,  or  loaned  money  on  a  ship  that  made  its  return  voyage  to 
some  other  harbor  than  Athens;3  against  those  who  broke  the  laws 
about  importation4  and  exportation,  especially  against  those  who 
imported  something  from  an  enemy5  or  sent  weapons  or  material  for 
shipbuilding  to  an  enemy;6  against  those  who  broke  the  custom  laws.7 
No  speeches  arising  from  a  (fdais  are  extant.  There  are  however 
references  to  such  suits  in  the  orators.  An  instance  in  which  a 
professional  sycophant  brought  a  (paais  is  mentioned  in  the  case  of 
Epichares  vs.  Theocrines.  The  defendant  in  this  case,  to  accept  his 
opponent's  story,  had  brought  suit  by  tpaavs  against  Micion  for  the 
violation  of  some  mercantile  law.  Before  the  case  came  to  trial 
he  accepted  Micion's  overtures  for  settlement.  This  settlement 
Epichares  uses  as  one  of  the  several  charges  against  the  defendant.8 

•Gilbert,  Const.  Antiq.  (Eng.)  406;  Lipsius,  A.  R.  310;  (Dem.)  58,  13. 

'  Lipsius.  op.  cit.  312. 

»(Dem.)  35.  51.  Cf.  (58,  12);  56,  6. 

4C.  I.  A.    I,  n,  31,  i  A. 

»  Ar.  Achat.  819  ff.;  908  ff.;  Isoc.  17,  42. 

•  Ar.  Frogs,  362  ff. 

7  Ar.  Knighls  300  ff. 

•  (Dem.)  58,  8. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  27 

A  similar  pacns  is  mentioned  in  the  Trapeziticus.9  The  speaker 
has  occasion  to  refer  to  an  incident  in  the  past  when  he  was  nearly 
condemned  to  death  because  some  sycophants  brought  a  ^dcns 
against  him,  alleging  that  a  ship,  on  which  he  had  loaned  money, 
belonged  to  a  man  from  Delos.  The  danger  in  which  he  had  found 
himself  is  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  Delos  had  been  opposed  to 
Athens  in  the  Corinthian  War10  and  the  jurors  were  easily  inflamed 
against  any  one  who  seemed  to  have  been  aiding  the  enemy.  At 
such  times  (paaets  would  prove  extremely  attractive  to  sycophants. 

It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  <paaets  against  those  who  neglected 
their  duties  as  guardians  were  rather  numerous.  The  attitude  of 
jurors  on  a  case  in  which  orphans  were  concerned  would  encourage 
many  a  sycophant  to  prosecute  wherever  possible.  The  speaker  in  the 
TrapaypaQri  vs.  Nausimachas  shows  how  easy  it  was  to  secure  con- 
viction in  such  cases.  He  justifies  his  father's  action,  years  before 
the  trial,  in  settling  with  his  wards  out  of  court,  when  they  brought 
suit  against  him  for  breach  of  trust:  "For  they  were  orphans  and 
young  and  their  characters  were  unknown;  things  that  with  you,  as 
every  one  says,  outweigh  a  multitude  of  arguments."11 

<Pd(T€ts  against  those  who  broke  the  laws  regulating  the  use  of 
mines  may  have  been  quite  common.  Hyperides  uses  such  a  ^aais 
as  an  example  of  a  suit  in  which  a  sycophant  lost  his  case  in  the  court.12 
Perhaps  the  difficulty  of  keeping  to  the  boundary  lines,  under  the 
surface  of  the  earth,  offered  a  litigious  person  chances  of  bringing 
such  suits. 

It  is  likely  that  the  <pacns  was  the  form  of  procedure  used  to  prose- 
cute those  who  infringed  upon  the  law  that  limited  the  number  of 
olive  trees  that  an  Athenian  might  use  yearly.  The  defendant,  if 
convicted,  was  obliged  to  pay  three  hundred  drachmae  to  the  state 
and  the  same  amount  to  the  prosecutor.13 

In  other  <pa.<reis  the  penalty  was  assessed  by  the  court  (Vidros).14 
In  cases  where  a  man  was  convicted  of  contravening  the  commerce 
laws  the  penalty  was,  in  all  probability,  confiscation  of  vessel  and 
cargo.15     In  <£>d<reis  against  guardians,  the  penalty  was  a  fine  of  which 

•Isoc.  17,42. 

10Lipsius,  A.R.  312,  n.  13. 

11  Dem.  38,  20.     Cf.  37,  45;  (58,  6). 

12  Hyp.  IV.  35. 

13  (Dem.)  43,  71.     Cf.  Lipsius  op.  cit.  313. 

14  Lipsius  op.  cit.  315. 
u  Ibid.,  313  n.  13. 


SYCOPB 

I  pari  \-.iiii  to  the  wrard  and  b  pari  to  the  successful  prosecutor.11 
Opportunities  for  gaining  su<  h  rewards  <  ould  aol  fail  to  be  extremely 
attrai  tive  to  the  sy<  ophant. 

re  mentioned  as  some  of  the  suits  regularly  used  by 

phants   like  ton"   and    Menecles   and    his   set.11    The 

numerous  referent  es  to  the  ^acns  in  Aristophanes,  both  directly  and  in 
puns,  show  how  common  it  was."  These  references  imply  that  syco- 
phants  made  free  use  of  this  form  of  suit.  The  troubles  that  Dicaeo- 
polis  had  with  sycophants  in  his  market  (dearly  show  how  watchful 
informers  were  for  a  chance  to  report  contraband  good-. 

Probably  the  besl  indication  of  the  frequency  with  which  syco- 
phants used  the  V"d(m  is  the  important  part  that  <pa<ns  and  <f>aiueiv 
in  their  technical  legal  sense,  play  in  some  of  the  suggested  etymolo- 

gies  of  (TVKOipaVTtlV. 

iLiroypatprj.  This  term  has  two  common  meanings.  (1)  An 
inventory  of  goods  claimed  as  state  property  and  alleged  to  be 
unlawfully  held  by  a  private  person.  (2)  The  legal  action  taken  to 
recover  such  property  for  the  state.  The  awoypcupr)  was  most  com- 
monly used  against  state  debtors  who  concealed  their  effects,  or 
against  some  one  who  was  supposed  to  have  unlawful  possession  of 
confiscated  property.21  Relatives  were  constantly  accused  of  con- 
cealing confiscated  property,  or  of  complicity  in  concealing  the 
effects  of  a  state  debtor. 

Several  features  of  the  a.Troypa<pr)  made  it  especially  attractive  to 
sycophants.  The  successful  prosecutor  received  three-fourths  of  the 
property  recovered.22  Such  a  large  reward  was  intended  to  encourage 
watchfulness  on  the  part  of  the  citizens.  Recovery  of  property  for 
the  state  was  important.  In  an  a.Troypa<pr)  the  prosecutor  had  a 
decided  advantage.  The  defendant  was  naturally  a  man  of  means. 
No  sycophant  would  care  to  bring  such  accusation  against  a  poor  man. 
He  could  afford  therefore  to  slight  the  evidence  and  devote  much  of 
his  time  to  generalizations  about  the  defendant's  wealth  and  to 
appeals   to  the  jurors'  cupidity.     In  the  extant  speeches  that  deal 

"Cf.  Ibid.  315,  n.  23;  Pollux  VIII,  48;  Plato  Lavs  928  BC;  745A. 

»  Dem.  25,  78. 

«  Dem.  39,  14. 

"  Ar.  Achar.  819;  908.  Vid.  p.  v.  above  for  other  references. 

10  Plut.  Solon  24. 

M  Paley  and  Sandys,  Intro,  and  Notes,  Dem.  53;  Lys.  19. 

"  Dem.  53,  1. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  29 

with  the  airo-yponpi)  this  is  the  course  followed.  The  wealth  of  Eucrates 
the  brother  of  Nicias  figures  very  prominently  in  one.2''  In  the  case 
vs.  Philocrates  his  free  use  of  money  for  bribery  is  emphasized  as  an 
indication  of  his  wealth.24  The  plaintiff  in  A  poll  odor  us  vs.  Xicostratus 
devotes  but  little  time  to  matters  that  are  relevant  to  the  case  before 
the  court.25  At  the  end  he  makes  strong  appeal  to  the  jurors  by 
reminding  them  that  the  suit  deals  with  "what  is  their  own."  Some 
prosecutors  did  not  hesitate  to  warn  the  jurors  that  their  fees  were  in 
danger  unless  the  treasury  was  replenished  by  conviction  of  the  de- 
fendant.26 When  conviction  meant  confiscation  of  property  or  pay- 
ment of  fines  this  was  especially  effective.  The  danger  of  defendants 
was  much  greater  if  the  suit  was  brought  when  the  funds  of  the  state 
were  low.  The  defendant  in  the  aToypcuprj  brought  for  the  recovery 
of  the  property  of  Aristophanes  comments  on  the  slight  chances 
that  he  has  in  such  a  suit  in  view  of  the  scarcity  of  money  in  the 
public  treasury  and  the  general  belief  that  the  man  whose  property 
is  in  question  was  wealthy.27 

The  readiness  of  jurors  to  suspect  friends,  and  especially  relatives, 
of  concealing  confiscated  property  added  to  the  advantage  that  the 
sycophant  had  in  this  suit.  The  airoypa<pr]  vs.  Philocrates  was  brought 
under  the  conviction  that  he  had  in  his  possession  the  property  of  his 
comrade  Ergocles,  who  had  grown  rich  at  public  expense.23 

When  relatives  were  on  trial  prosecutors  neglected  to  confine 
their  remarks  to  proof  that  these  relatives  had  in  their  possession 
the  property  in  question.  They  attempted  rather  to  show  that  the 
defendants  were  rich  men  and  let  it  be  inferred  from  probabilities  that 
a  part  of  this  wealth  was  derived  from  the  property  which  they  were 
said  to  have  concealed.  Such  arguments  tended  to  influence  the 
jurors  against  the  accused.  In  the  airoypaipri  for  recovery  of  the 
property  of  Aristophanes,  the  property  actually  at  stake  is  that  of 
Aristophanes'  brother-in-law.29 

While  there  is  no  certain  instance  of  airoypa^al  brought  by  syco- 
phants apart  from  the  one  mentioned  by  Hyperides,30  the  case  dealing 

23  Lys.  18,  l.Vid.  p.  30,  n.  31 

24  Lys.  29,  I;  28,  1. 

25  Dem.  53,  26-27;  cf.  Lys.  29,  8;  19,  11. 
"Lys.  27,  1. 

"Lys.  19,  11. 

28  Lys.  28,  1. 

29  Lys.  19,  and  vid.  Adams'  intro.  p.  162,  note  2. 
30 IV,  35  ff. 


30  SY<  "Ml 

with  the  property  of  Eucrates,"  the  brother  of  Nicias,  is  a  good 
example  of  the  methods  thai  a  sycophant  would  follow.  Eucrates 
pul  to  ilcaih  by  tlie  Thirty  in  404  B.C  Several  years  later 
Poliochus  proposed  the  confiscation  of  the  proj>erty  lefl  by  Eucrates. 
A  decree  was  pa  ed  to  thai  effect.  In  the  speech  thai  we  have  the 
elder  son  of   Eucrates  oppos<  ecution.     The  reasons  for  the 

confiscation  are  not  known.  'I  he  impression  that  the  defense  makes, 
however,  is  that  the  whole  affair  i-  t\uv  to  some  litigious  person's 
desire  to  enrich  himself  by  bringing  before  the  court  a  relative  of  the 
wealthy  Nicias,  who  was  never  a  friend  of  the  extreme  democracy. 
Ordinarily  he  relatives  of  a  man  put  to  death  by  the  Thirty  would 
run  no  such  ri  k  as  the  descendants  of  Eucrates  do  in  this  case, 
lint  the  wealth  and  conservative  one  of  this  family  were  serious 
disadvantages.  Confirmatory  evidence  for  this  view  is  found  in  the 
referent'  to  the  voluntary  exile  of  Diognetus,  another  brother  of 
Nicias,  due  to  the  malicious  persecution  of  sycophants.32 

Opportunities  of  bringing  airoy penpal  against  state  debtors  must 
have  been  numerous.  The  case  of  Apollodorus  vs.  Nicostratus  is  of 
that  type.  The  litigious  nature  of  the  prosecutor  and  his  careful 
insistence  on  tie  desire  to  avenge  himself  for  personal  wrongs  might 
arouse  suspicion  that  in  this  instance  we  have  a  case  in  which  the 
prosecutor  is  a  sycophant,  and  is  bringing  the  suit  for  the  financial 
gain  that  there  may  be  in  it.  But  his  renunciation  of  the  reward  is 
rather  conclusive  proof  that  he  is  sincere  in  the  motives  he  alleges.33 
After  all  it  is  not  important  whether  Apollodorus  is  a  sycophant  in 
this  prosecution  or  not.  His  careful  insistence  on  per -onal  motives 
and  the  renunciation  of  the  fee  are  intended  to  show  that  he  is  not. 
This  in  itself  is  the  best  indication  of  the  degree  to  which  sycophants 
used  the  airoypaif-n.  The  jurors  were  likely  to  be  suspicious  of  a 
prosecutor  in  a  suit  of  this  type  unless  he  made  special  efforts  to  put 
himself  in  the  right  light  before  them. 

There  are  general  charges  of  sycophancy  in  some  of  the  cases.34 
These  do  not,  to  be  sure,  prove  anything  about  the  character  of  the 

S1  Lys.  18.  Lipsius  (A.  R.  299)  regards  this  speech  as  dealing  with  an  iirroypa^. 
(t  certainly  has  the  tone  of  a  defence  rather  than  that  of  a  speech  delivered  by  a  prose- 
cutor attacking  the  constitutionality  of  a  decree.  For  the  latter  view  vid.  Jebb  .4//. 
Or.  Vol.  1. 

"Lys.  18,  19. 

M  Dem.  53,  1  (T. 

••Lys.  1",  <>.  51.64. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  3 1 

prosecutor  in  question.  But  they  point  unmistakably  to  the  fact 
that  the  airoypcupri  was  a  favorite  suit  with  sycophants.  There  were 
undoubtedly  many  of  the  profession  who  like  Agoratus  enriched 
themselves  by  this  form  of  suit.35 

Significant  evidence  of  the  number  of  (paaeis  and  aroypaifal  that 
were  brought  by  sycophants  is  found  in  the  fact  that  Hyperides 
chooses  such  suits  as  typical  examples  of  the  activity  of  sycophants.36 
The  orator  devotes  considerable  space  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
speech  for  Euxinippus  to  a  defence  of  the  courts.  His  main  thesis 
is  that  sycophants  are  regularly  punished  and  that  in  this  way  the 
courts  aid  the  citizens.  As  examples  of  this  he  cites  the  cases  of 
Lysander  and  Teisis.  The  latter  had  brought  an  aivoypa^r]  alleging 
that  the  property  of  Euthycrates  was  liable  for  confiscation.  To  win 
the  jurors'  votes  he  promised  to  get  for  the  state  more  than 
seventy  talents.  He  also  made  promises  of  bringing  similar  actions 
against  two  other  Athenians.  He  lost  his  case,  however,  and  did  not 
receive  one-fifth  of  the  votes.  The  case  of  Lysander  wa-  similar. 
He  had  brought  a  <^d<m  aga:nst  Epicrates  on  the  ground  that  he  was 
not  keeping  within  the  prescribed  limits  in  the  working  of  his  mine. 
He  also  used  the  customary  methods  in  trying  to  influence  the 
jurors.  He  assured  them  that  conviction  meant  three  hundred 
talents  for  the  state.  In  spite  of  this  he  lost  the  case.  Hyperides 
naturally  picks  out  well-known  examples  in  which  the  nature  of  the 
cases  brought  by  the  sycophants  was  so  clear  to  the  jurors  that  the 
appeals  that  were  usually  effective  failed  to  have  their  expected  re- 
sults. 

ypcupr)  ^evias.37  The  law  quoted  in  Theomnestus  vs.  Neaera  el 
Stephanus88  shows  opportunities  for  financial  gain  in  another  kind  of 
suit.  "If  an  alien  shall  live  as  husband  with  an  Athenian  woman  by 
any  device  or  contrivance  whatsoever,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  any 
Athenians,  who  are  possessed  of  such  right,  to  indict  him  before  the 
judges.  And  if  he  is  convicted,  he  shall  be  sold  for  a  slave  and  his 
property  shall  be  confiscated,  and  the  third  part  shall  belong  to  the 
person  who  secured  his  conviction.  And  the  like  proceedings  shall 
be  taken,  if  an  alien  woman  live  as  wife  with  an  Athenian  citizen 

"Lysias  13,  65.     Liroypa^ij  is  here  mentioned  as  the  sort  of  procedure  that  this 
sycophant  had  used  with  great  financial  success. 
M  Hyp.  IV,  33  ff. 

"Vid.  Lipsius  i4 . /?.  417;  Meicr-Schomann-Lipsius,  AtHscfu   Pi         ■    MSL)424ff. 
"  (Dem.)  59,  16;  (Kennedy). 


BYCOPE  \    •   .   r     -Mill 

and  the  citizen  who  live  b  husband  with  an  alien  woman  so  con- 
victed shall  incur  the  penalty  of  a  thousand  drachma  V  i  'his 
law:'-  "If  any  one  Bhall  give  a  foreign  woman  in  marriage  to  a 
citizen  <>!'  Athens,  representing  her  as  belonging  to  himself  he  shall  be 
disfranchised,  and  his  property  -hall  be  confiscated,  and  the  third 
part  thereof  shall  be  given  to  the  person  who  has  procured  his  con- 
viction." 

Stephanus  and  Neaera  arc  accused  of  having  transgressed  these 
laws.  It'  Apollodorus  describes  the  situation  truthfully,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  in  this  instance  he  and  Theomnestus  were  justified 
in  prosecuting.  Their  motives  were,  however,  revenge  and  they 
emphasize  this  to  make  clear  to  the  jurors  that  they  are  not  syco- 
phants. The  chance  of  getting  the  reward  would  appeal  to  many 
who  would  accuse  for  no  other  motive.  They  were  reasonably  sure 
of  success  since  the  jurors  would  be  influenced  by  the  Athenian 
jealousy  of  the  rights  of  citizenship  and  the  desire  to  keep  the  Attic 
blood  free   from  contamination. 

As  litigant  the  sycophant  could  avail  himself,  on  occasion,  of 
private  suits  (Sinai)  as  well  as  public.  But  the  chances  here  were 
fewer.     He  could  bring  such  suits  only  if  personally  concerned.40 

The  Sycophant  as  a  Blackmailer 

The  most  lucrative  side  of  the  sycophant's  business  must  have 
been  blackmail.1  When  one  recalls  the  nature  of  the  courts  one 
realizes  that  many  an  Athenian  would  prefer  to  settle  with  his 
accuser  out  of  court,  rather  than  run  the  risk  that  a  trial  would 
involve.  He  never  knew  what  incident  in  his  past  life  might  be 
brought  into  the  case  to  influence  the  jurors  or  who  might  join  in 
attacking  him.  The  father  of  Mantitheus  feared  to  come  into 
court  in  a  case  brought  by  Boeotus  lest  someone  who  had  been 
offended  by  him  in  some  political  act  might  come  forward  and  aid 
his  accusers.2  If  a  man  of  means  was  haled  to  court  his  enemies  reg- 
ularly assisted  the  prosecutor  and  if  a  verdict  was  secured,  it  acted  as 
an  incentive  to  others  to  bring  suits  against  him.     The  defendant  in 

"Ibid.,  52.     (Kennedy). 

40  Discussion  of  the  sycophant's  use  of  5f<cai  will  be  found  on  p.  46  ff. 

1  Lys.  25.  3. 

•  Dem.  39,  3.     Cf.  Ar.  Wasps  841. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  33 

the  case  vs.  Simon3  states  that  Simon  had  made  no  effort  to  bring  suit 
against  him  until  he  had  been  unsuccessful  in  some  private  suits 
that  had  sprung  up  as  a  result  of  an  antidosis.  In  the  defence  of 
his  life  Isocrates  represents  himself  beset  by  a  sycophant  who  had 
attacked  him  after  he  lost  the  suit  that  dealt  with  the  antidosis, 
and  who  made  use  of  some  of  the  misrepresentations  and  slanders 
directed  against  Isocrates  in  that  suit.4 

The  fear  aroused  by  a  summons  to  court  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
in  the  extant  homicide  cases  the  desire  to  dispose  of  a  man  who  had 
begun  or  threatened  litigation  is  constantly  treated  as  one  of  the 
possible  motives  of  homicide.  This  appears  as  a  topos  in  the  First 
Tetralogy  of  Antiphon.5  The  man  whom  the  defendant  is  accused 
of  having  murdered  had  secured  several  convictions  against  him  and 
had  but  recently  entered  a  new  suit.  It  was  in  the  hope  of  avoiding 
this  suit,  so  the  plaintiff  charged,  that  the  defendant  had  committed 
the  deed.  Such  extreme  measures  might  be  rather  natural  if  the 
prospective  defendant  was  actually  guilty.  But  even  the  fear  of 
meeting  in  court  entirely  groundless  charges  brought  by  a  sycophant, 
seems  to  have  been  a  conventional  explanation  of  a  homicide.  Eu- 
philetus,  in  his  defense,  when  accused  of  the  murder  of  Eratosthenes, 
relates  why  he  was  justified  in  killing  the  latter.  He  then  shows  that 
there  was  nothing  else  in  his  previous  relations  with  the  dead  man 
that  could  be  suggested  as  a  motive  for  his  action,  "ovrt  yap  vvko- 
ipavrdv  ne  kypaiparo"  is  the  first  motive  that  he  suggests  for  rejection.6 

Other  features  also  made  blackmail  very  successful.  It  hardly 
needs  to  be  said  that  the  poor  would  scarcely  ever  be  threatened 
with  prosecution  by  a  professional  litigant.7  There  was  nothing  to 
gain  if  he  won  his  suit  and  certainly  no  chances  for  getting  money 
by  threats  of  litigation.  Therefore  the  wealthy  and  air  pay  ixovts* 
were  the  natural  targets  for  the  sycophant's  attacks.  "Those  who 
are  clever  talkers  and  have  no  money  try  to  make  groundless  attacks 
on  those  who  are  no  speakers  at  all,  but  are  able  to  pay  well."9 
They  hated  litigation  and  could  well  afford  to  pay  hush-money. 

3  Lys.  3,  20. 

*  Isoc.  15,  8,  33. 

6  Ant.  A  a  5-6.     Cf.  Ant.  5,  60. 
•Lys.  1,  43. 

7  "  wepl  ras  obvlas  Kivbvvoiv  ov  pertcm  tois  ^rivr)(n.,,      Isoc.    20. 1^. 

8  Ar.  Birds,    285    KaXXias  &i>  ytvvaios   inrd  avKo^avrCiv   riXXtrcu. 
"Isoc.   21.5. 


I  I  SYCOPH  \N<  V  IN  ATHENS 

Demosthenes  describes  a  man  who  •   to  litigation  (a-wpky- 

fuav)  ;nxl  so  uprighl  thai  he  Lost  his  whole  property,  evidently  either 
through  court  judgments  <>r  by  paying  accusers  to  keep  the  matter 
out  of  the  court  .'"  Ili  desire  to  live  without  xpayftoervvri  was  appar- 
ently well  known  t<>  sycophants.  "The  rich  can  buy  off  tdviwot" 
i-.  the  terse  summary  of  the  Cripple.11  "By  displaying  their  powers  in 
the  case  of  men  who  live  uprightly  they  can  exact  much  more  money 
from  real  evil  do<  t  "  is  I  ".  rates'  explanation  of  the  activities  of  the 
sycophant  against  law  abiding  dirpay/jLoues.12  "Those  who  are 
guilty  of  no  Wrong  are  the  ones  from  whom  sycophants  get  most  of 
their  money"  is  the  opinion  expressed  by  another  speaker.13  Timar- 
chus  is  described  as  having  made  most  of  his  money  by  blackmailing 
those  who  were  entirely  innocent  of  any  wrong.14  Cleon  is  said  to 
have  been  especially  ready  to  attack  d7rpdY;uoj'es.15  The  attitude  of 
the  jurors  towards  such  wealthy  defendants  assisted  the  sycophant. 
Charmides  in  Xenophon's  Symposium  says  that  his  most  prized 
possession  is  his  poverty.  When  he  was  rich  he  was  compelled  to 
fawn  on  sycophants  and  was  in  constant  dread  of  losing  his  money 
because  he  knew  that  they  could  do  him  more  harm  than  he  could 
do  to  them.16  The  harm  that  he  mentions  is  presumably  the  adverse 
decision  that  he  would  have  reason  to  expect  if  he  carried  a  matter 
to  the  court.  "Before  the  jurors"  says  Isocrates  somewhat  bitterly, 
"a  defendant  must  apologize  for  financial  success.  Wealth  rather 
than  crime  makes  a  man's  life  precarious."17 

A  clear  case  of  settlement  to  avoid  trial  is  found  in  Epichares  vs. 
Theocrines.1*  The  defendant  had  brought  a  <pa<ns  against  Micion 
for  violating  some  mercantile  law.  The  latter  had  apparently  inten- 
ded to  appear  in  court  and  defend  himself,  for  the  <pdcns  "was  hung 
out  for  a  long  time  before  the  synedrion  of  the  overseers  of  the 
Emporium."  Just  before  the  anacrisis,  however,  Micion  decided  to 
pay  Theocrines  and  so  put  a  stop  to  the  proceedings.  Theocrines, 
the  professional  sycophant  had  probably  suggested  that  this  would 

10Dem.  21,  83. 
"Lys.   24,    17. 
12Isoc.  15,  24-25. 
»  Lys.  25,  3. 
u  Aesch.  1,  107. 
15  Ar.  Knights,  261. 
19  Xen.  Symp.  IV,  30. 

17  Isoc.  15,  160.  Cf.  Xen.  Mem.  IV,  2.35. 

18  (Dera.)  58,  6,  8  ff. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  35 

be  an  easy  way  out.  Upon  receipt  of  the  money  Theocrines  withdrew 
his  charge.  The  fact  that  the  sycophant  had  accepted  a  trilling 
sum  in  settlement,  and  so  lost  the  half  of  the  forfeiture  that  convic- 
tion would  have  brought,  is  used  by  Epichares  to  prove  that  the 
ceteris  against  Micion  was  groundless.  The  reasoning  is  plausible. 
Micion  may  not  have  cared  to  take  the  risk  that  a  trial  would  involve 
even  though  he  was  innocent. 

References  to  such  instances  of  blackmail  are  common.  Theo- 
crines seems  to  have  been  very  successful  in  forcing  people  to  pay 
him  hush  money.19  Aristogiton  another  professional  sycophant 
often  started  suit  against  men  of  high  standing  in  the  state  and 
dropped  proceedings  when  they  offered  money.20  Ariston,  made  it 
his  business  to  issue  legal  summons  to  "everybody"  according  to 
the  statement  of  Hyperides.  If  those  who  were  summoned  did  not 
pay  him  hush-money  he  forced  them  to  come  into  court  and  stand 
trial.21 

References  to  blackmail  are  frequent  in  Aristophanes.  The 
Chorus  of  Knights  urges  Agoracritus,  the  Sausage  Seller  to  attack 
Cleon  for  having  received  bribes.  If  he  does  this  he  will  be  the 
mightiest  of  the  Greeks  and  rule  over  the  allies,  and  will  make  much 
money  by  shaking  (aelcov)  and  disturbing  {rapaTTuv)  them.22  The 
use  of  creiuv  suggests  the  description  of  Philocrates  and  his  blackmail 
of  magistrates.23  One  passage  is  of  special  interest  and  value  in  this 
connection.  The  Sausage  Seller  and  Cleon  are  striving  for  the  favor 
of  Demus  by  offering  rival  oracles.  One  that  the  former  reads 
warns  Demus  to  "beware  of  Cyllene."  "What  Cyllene?"  asks 
Demus.  "He  calls  this  fellow's  hand  Cyllene,  and  he  is  right  in 
that.  For  he  says  'put  into  my  bent  hand.'  "24  The  pun  is  untrans- 
latable and  involves  a  play  on  KvW-qvrj  a  sea  port  in  Elis  and  KvWfj 
(xetpt)  a  bent  hand.     The  Scholiast  explains  the  reference   by   the 

18  Ibid.  32. 

20  Dem.  25.  Vid.  Section  on  "Typical  Athenian  Sycophants"  for  full  discus- 
sion, p.  78  ff. 
31  Hyp.  1,  2. 

22  Ar.  Knights  840;  for  the  same  thought  vid.  Ar.  Peace  639;  Knights  472 
iatiov  tovs  ira\ti%  Kal  -rrXouffiovs. 

23  (reio)  seems  to  be  technical  for  "shake  down."  The  remark  of  the  Scholiast 
on  Knights  1083  contains  the  reference  to  the  sycophants  as  "ol  atLovrti."  In  his 
time  the  word  had  apparently  become  fixed  with  that  meaning.  Vid.  Van  Lccu- 
wen  and  Rogers  ad  he. 

24  Knights  1083.     Merry  translates  "Crookhaven." 


36  i  i 

itatemenl  thai  Athenian  informers,  while  threatening  their  victims, 
urn-  in  the  habil  of  lipping  ou1  their  benl  hands  from  under  their 
cloaks,  intimating  thereby  thai  they  would  stop  all  proceedings  for  a 
"consideration." 

The  blackmailer  did  of  course  run  a  risk.  He  might  be  disappointed 
in  his  hopes  of  receiving  hush-money.  It  would  then  be  almost  neces- 
Bary  for  him  to  tarry  the  case  into  court.  Not  to  do  so  would  make 
future  threats  futile.  This  exposed  him  to  the  danger  of  Losing  the 
and  perhaps  of  failure  to  receive  a  fifth  of  the  votes.  The  mere 
loss  of  a  uim'  emailed  no  serious  financial  inconvenience,  but  he  would 
bear  the  stigma  of  having  made  an  ineffectual  attempt  and  for  the 
sycophant  that  was  serious  enough.  But  failure  to  receive  at  least 
one-fifth  of  the  votes  usually  involved  a  fine  of  one  thousand  drach- 
mas and  the  inability  of  bringing  a  similar  case  again.25  This  makes 
it  entirely  reasonable  that  sycophants  were  willing  ordinarily  to  ac- 
cept rather  small  sums  by  way  of  settlement.  Crito  speaks  of  them 
as  cheap  and  easily  bought  off.26  Theocrines  was  willing  to  settle 
with  Micion  for  a  "trifling  sum"  rather  than  take  his  chances  of  win- 
ning a  much  larger  sum  by  a  successful  trial,  even  though  the  reward 
in  this  case  (ipaats)  would  have  been  unusually  large.27  The  advan- 
tages that  a  prosecutor  regularly  had,  however,  were  so  much  in  the 
sycophant's  favor  that  he  would  not  often  hesitate  to  bring  suit  if 
forced  to  do  so.  Moreover  a  suit  was  worth  the  risk.  A  successful 
prosecution,  though  it  brought  no  financial  advantage,  increased  the 
terror  of  the  sycophant's  name.  How  very  effective  this  was  is 
seen  from  an  incident  in  the  career  of  the  sycophant  Theocrines.28 

The  father  of  Epichares  had  drawn  up  a  decree  proposing  that 
maintenance  in  the  Prytaneum  be  given  Charidemus,  the  son  of 
Ischomachus.  Theocrines  brought  a  graphe  paranomon  against  him 
for  this  motion.  The  boy  had  been  adopted  by  Aeschylus.  Theo- 
crines urged  that  he  should  not  be  restored  to  his  father's  family; 
a  situation  that  would  result  if  the  decree  was  passed.  Under  those 
circumstances  he  would  lose  the  estate  that  Aeschylus  had  given 
him.  He  further  asserted  that  Polyeuctus  who  had  married  the  boy's 
mother,  had  contrived  to  have  the  decree  proposed  so  as  to  get  the 
money  that  the  boy  would  lose  if  it  were  carried.     Theocrines  offered 

:s  Yid.  Section  on  "Checks  on  Sycophancy  "  p.  86  ff. 
:"  Plato  Crito  45  A. 
"  (Dem.)  58,  12-13. 
»  (Dem.)  58,  32  ff. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  37 

Epichares'  father  the  chance  of  settlement.  He  said  he  was  willing 
to  withdraw  his  suit  if  he  paid  him  ten  talents.  Such  a  sum  the 
defendant  could  not  pay  however.  The  readiness  of  the  Athenian 
jury  to  sympathize  with  orphans  gave  Theocrines  a  feeling  of  assur- 
ance in  this  case  and  he  carried  the  matter  through  and  won,  as  was 
to  be  expected.  His  success  offered  him  an  unusually  excellent 
opportunity  to  extort  money.  He  knew  that  the  jurors  were  angered 
at  Polyeuctus  for  what  they  considered  a  plot  to  rob  an  orphan. 
That  was  just  the  time  to  threaten  him  with  prosecution.  He 
would  hardly  dare  to  let  the  matter  come  to  trial.  Theocrines  sum- 
moned him  before  the  archon  and  brought  a  ypa^-q  naKwaeuis  against 
him.  For  a  while  Polyeuctus  hesitated  as  to  what  course  to  follow. 
Theocrines  handed  the  indictment  to  the  assessor.  This  decided 
the  matter.  Polyeuctus  paid  him  three  hundred  drachmas  and  the 
case  was  dropped.29 

To  make  their  threats  of  litigation  more  productive  of  gain, 
sycophants  employed  others  to  assist  them  in  frightening  their  vic- 
tims. Callimachus  sent  "  his  friends"  to  urge  a  prospective  defendant 
to  settle  out  of  court.  They  dwelt  on  the  numerous  chances  of  mis- 
carriage of  justice  in  the  courts  and  urged  him  not  to  allow  himself 
to  be  abused  publicly  (m7?  fiovXeadai  kolkcos  anoveiv).  Their  arguments 
are  said  to  be  the  usual  ones  on  such  occasions. 

Callimachus  also  took  occasion  to  spread  rumors  about  the 
city  of  his  own  mistreatment  at  the  hands  of  the  defendant.  Such 
statements  were  intended  to  affect  the  jurors'  decision — some  of 
the  men  to  whom  he  talked  might  later  serve  as  jurors  on  the  case. 
And  even  if  not,  the  rumors  would  be  likely  to  come  to  the  ears  of  the 
jurors.30 

Suits  in  which  no  fine  or  atimia  followed  the  failure  to 'receive 
one-fifth  of  the  votes  offered  the  least  danger  to  the  sycophant,  if 
he  was  compelled  to  put  a  threat  of  litigation  into  effect.  So  far  as 
can  be  determined,  however,  there  were  very  few  such  public  suits. 
In  fact,  a  literal  interpretation  of  a  passage  in  Isaeus  would  indicate 
that  eisangeliae  against  those  who  mistreated  orphans,  heiresses, 
widows  or  parents  were  the  only  clkipSwol  ypa<pai.3i  These  at  least 
were  so.     Court  fees  were  even  omitted  in  such  cases.     With  regard 

29  In  a  similar  way  the  success  of  Callimachus  in  extorting  money  made 
subsequent  efforts  successful.     Isoc.  18,7-10. 

30  Isoc.  18,  7-10. 

u  Isaeus,  III,  46-47. 


4268 


38  BY(  "I'll  Uffl  I   r.   \  iiiias 

to  eisangeliae  in  general,  references  disagree.  It.  seems  probable, 
though,  thai  originally  all  eisangeliae  were  aKivbwoi,  especially  since 
they  were  used  only  in  cases  that  seemed  to  require  extraordinary 
measures.  The  language  in  the  case  of  Ariston  vs.  Lycophron  indi- 
cate- thai  in  the  time  of  Hyperides  they  were  free  from  fine  or  atimia.32 
The  statement  of  a  Lexicographer  to  the  effect  that  prosecutors  who 
lost  eisangelia  were  fined,  but  not  punished  with  atimia,  is  probably 
true  of  the  later  time  when  sycophants  had  so  abused  these  suits 
that  measure^  had  to  be  taken  to  check  them.33  Considerable  oppor- 
tunities for  blackmail  were  undoubtedly  offered  by  the  eisangelia. 
The  defendant  would  in  all  likelihood  be  turned  over  to  the  court 
for  trial  even  though  the  case  was  brought  in  the  first  instance 
before  either  the  ecclesia  or  Boule\  Under  such  circumstances  he  was 
in  greater  danger  than  usual.  The  very  fact  that  the  body  before 
which  the  case  had  been  entered  thought  the  accused  man  worthy 
of  trial  made  the  courts  more  ready  to  believe  him  guilty.  This 
situation  offered  the  sycophant  a  splendid  opportunity  to  get  money 
from  a  man  by  threatening  him  with  such  a  prosecution.  If  he  paid, 
well  and  good.  If  he  took  his  chances  and  came  before  the  court  (or 
whatever  body  tried  the  case)  the  suit  was  aidvdvvos.  If  the  man 
became  frightened  and  left  the  country  and  went  into  exile,  as  some 
did  who  were  threatened  with  this  sort  of  suit,34  the  sycophant  could 
point  to  the  instance  and  pretend  that  he  had  done  the  state  a  great 
benefit  in  attacking  a  man  who  confessed,  by  his  voluntary  exile,  that 
he  was  guilty.  This  would  also  incidentally  show  his  power.  In 
the  hands  of  the  sycophant  Aristogiton  the  eisangelia  was  an  effective 
weapon.  He  began  eisanglia  proceedings  against  Hegemon,  but 
discontinued  them  when  the  latter  paid  him  the  bribe  he  desired.  Over 
Demades  he  held  threats  of  a  similar  suit  until  he  forced  him  also  to 
pay  blackmail.35 

Numerous  chances  for  blackmail  were  undoubtedly  found  in 
threats  of  accusations  against  those  who  were  exercising  the  rights  of 
citizens  though  they  were  wholly  or  partially  disfranchised.36  Atimia 
in  its  various  forms  was  very  common  in  Athens.    There  were  apparently 

"  MSL.  952;  Hyp.  1,  12;  Pollux  VIII,  52  S. 
"  Pollux  VIII,  53. 
u  Lye.  c.  Lcoc.  90. 
"  Dera.  25,  47. 

M  Vid.  D.  and  S.  Did.  des  Antiq.  s.  v.  atimia:  Lipsius  A.  R.  partial,  245,  396; 
complete  789,  947. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  39 

no  means  of  automatically  insuring  the  exclusion  of  the  atimoi  from 
the  rights  of  citizenship.  The  effectiveness  of  the  atimia  depended 
on  the  watchfulness  of  the  citizens.  That  persons  who  were  par- 
tially disfranchised  did  succeed  in  passing  themselves  off  as  eniripLoi 
with  full  rights,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  litigants  constantly 
accused  their  opponents  of  availing  themselves  of  privileges  to 
which  they  were  not  entitled.37  A  full  list  of  the  various  atimiae  is 
hardly  necessary  for  the  present  purpose.  The  most  common  seem 
to  have  fallen  on  state-deb  tors  ;3s  on  those  convicted  for  crimes  that 
the  Athenians  considered  especially  serious — e.g.,  theft,  ill-treatment 
of  parents,  desertion;39  on  prosecutors  who  failed  to  receive  as  much 
as  a  fifth  of  the  votes  in  a  public  suit  or  who  withdrew  from  a  public 
suit  after  starting  it.40  A  common  form  of  partial  atimia  was  that 
by  which  a  man  was  prevented  from  speaking  in  public  or  serving  as  a 
juror.41  In  the  very  nature  of  the  case  there  must  have  been  many 
who  attempted  to  disregard  this  restriction.  The  occasion  for  the 
suit  of  Demosthenes  vs.  Aristogiton  was  the  latter's  continued  attempts 
to  take  part  in  the  meetings  of  the  assembly  and  to  serve  as  juror, 
before  he  was  discharged  from  certain  debts  to  the  state.12  The 
same  charge  was  included  in  the  accusation  against  Theocrines.43 
One  of  the  counts  against  Androtion  was  the  charge  that  he  was 
guilty  of  such  practices  as  disabled  him  from  speaking  in  public.44 
The  numerous  offences  included  under  the  term  dae/3eia  were 
naturally  the  cause  of  much  litigation.46  The  term  was  so  wide  in 
its  application  that  it  was  comparatively  easy  to  accuse  persons 
for  violating  the  law  in  this  regard.  The  defendant  had  the  religious 
prejudices  of  the  jurors  against  him.  The  fact  that  in  addition 
to  the  ypcupri  aaePelas,  there  were  also  euda^cs  and  el(rayye\la  shows 
the  seriousness  with  which  these  offences  were  regarded.  The 
evSetfa  dcre/3etas  brought  against  Andocides  shows  how  easy  it  was  to 
find  grounds  for  accusing  some  one  of  impiety,  especially  if  he  was 

"  Dem.  25,  30;  24,  166. 

38  Dem.  25,  30;  28,  1;  53,  14;  21,  182;  24,  123. 

39  Dem.    24,    105. 

"(Dem.)  53,  1;  58,  10;  21,  103-4. 

41  Dem.  25,  30;  21,  103-4. 

■  Dem.  25,4. 

«  (Dem.)  58,  48  ff. 

**  Dem.  24,  123. 

44  For  full  treatment  vid.  MSL.  368  ff.  Cf.  also  D.  and  S.  Did    I      I 


in  sv<  oph \--'  .  i'-  \rm 

subject  i<»  a  decree  thai  rendered  him  practically  an  exile.  The 
main  charge  againsl  Andocides  was  thai  he  was  guilty  of  impiety 
becau  e  he  had  attended  the  Mysteries4*  and  had  entered  the  Eleu- 
sini.in  shrine41  (a1  Athens)  when  e  excluded  by  the  decree  of 

[sotimides.48  l<»  this  were  added  the  charge  thai  he  was  j^ui  1  ty  of 
impiety  because  he  had  habitually  entered  holy  places  from  which 
the  decree  excluded  him."  and  thai  he  had  exercised  the  rights  of 
citizen  and  entered  the  agora  when  prohibited  by  the  decree.*0 
Andocides  would  have  been  compelled  to  stay  very  close  at  home  to 
avoid  being  involved  in  trouble  with  some  one  who  might  be  watch- 
ing foi  a  i  hance  to  attack  him  in  the  courts.  As  he  claims,  some  of  his 
accusers  are  professional  sycophants.''1  Whether  they  expected  any 
overtures  for  settlement  from  Andocides  is  not  known.  The  suit 
thus  show,  however,  what  such  men  might  do  with  persons  less  sure 
of  their  casts  than  Andocides. 

The  indictment  of  Socrates  on  the  charge  of  impiety  is  too 
familiar  to  be  discussed.  Crito  anticipates  criticism  on  the  part  of 
Socrates'  friends  for  his  failure  to  prevent  the  trial  of  the  case.52 
Presumably  one  method  of  doing  this  would  have  been  to  buy  off 
the  accusers.  The  friends  who  were  ready  to  spend  money  and  if 
necessary  to  lose  their  whole  fortunes  to  get  him  out  of  prison  were 
surely  equally  ready  to  prevent  the  trial.53  Socrates  himself,  however, 
would  most  certainly  have  absolutely  refused  to  consent  to  any  such 
arrangement,  just  as  he  did  refuse  to  leave  prison. 

Some  opportunity  for  blackmail  was  offered  by  threats  of  evSeil-ts 
against  exiles  who  returned  before  their  term  had  expired  and  against 
those  suspected  of  homicide.  "Ev<5ei£is  and  d7ra7«7J754  are  mentioned 
as  means  of  procedure  much  used  by  sycophants  like  Menecles, 
Aristogiton  and  Theocrines.55     The  d7raYury?7  could  offer  but  few  chan- 

48  And.  1,  3. 

«  (Lys.)  6,  42. 
"And.  1,  71. 

49  (Lys.)  6,  9. 

60  Ibid.  6.  9,  33. 

61  And.  1,  92,  99-100. 
"  Plato  Crito  45  E. 

M  Ibid.  45  B. 

M  Yid.  Lipsius  A.  R.  317  ff.  for  full  discussion  of  the  relation  of  these  forms  of 
procedure  to  one  another. 

M  Dem.  25,  78;  39,  14;'(58,  45). 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  41 

ces,  but  since  the  two  procedures  are  so  much  alike  and  so  often  men- 
tioned together  it  is  natural  to  speak  of  both  of  them  as  favorites 
with  sycophants.  The  cumulative  effect  gained  by  accusing  syco- 
phants of  using  ypcupai,  <pa<reLS,  ei/<5ei£eis,  awaycoyal  may  have  appealed 
to  those  who  prosecuted  them. 

There  was  one  means  of  revealing  offenders  to  the  authorities  that 
gave  the  sycophant  splendid  opportunities  for  displaying  his  power. 
This  was  ju^jwis.56  In  its  essentials  it  seems  to  have  differed  very 
little  from  eisangelia.  It  could  be  brought  before  the  Boule  or 
ecclesia  and  to  judge  from  the  instances  of  which  we  have  knowledge 
it  was  commonly  used  in  case  of  high  treason  or  sacrilege.  But  the 
important  difference  between  it  and  the  eisangelia  was  that  the 
/jLrjvvTris  was  not  required  to  do  more  than  merely  lodge  information. 
He  need  not  act  as  prosecutor  before  the  courts  unless  he  wished. 
This  was  a  natural  provision  since  the  /jl^uvttjs  might  be  a  metic,57 
a  slave,58  or  an  accomplice  who  turned  state's  evidence.59  It  was 
customary  to  reward  him  with  money  or  if  he  was  a  slave  with 
freedom.60  Since  the  use  of  /z^iwis  seems  to  have  been  made  in 
most  instances  in  times  of  great  excitement,  and  when  the  state  was 
much  aroused  and  eager  to  punish  wrong-doers  the  sycophant  with 
threats  of  iirivvais  must  have  been  very  successful  financially.  A 
brief  review  of  the  account  given  by  Andocides  of  the  situation  after 
the  Mutilation  of  the  Hermae  will  show  how  active  informers  (h^vi'tclL) 
were  at  that  time. 

In  an  effort  to  discover  the  guilty,  high  rewards  were  offered  for 
information  regarding  the  perpetrators  of  the  sacrilege;  one  thousand, 
and  ten  thousand  drachmae  by  the  ecclesia  and  the  Boule  respec- 
tively.61 Andromachus,  a  slave,  Teucer,  a  metic,  Agariste,  the  wife  of 
Alcmeonidas,  Lydus,  a  slave  all  gave  information.62  Only  one  of 
these  four,  Teucer,  mentioned  the  Mutilation.63  The  rest,  and 
Teucer  as  well,  told  of  other  sacriligious  occurences,  the  mock  cele- 
bration of  the  Eleusinian  Mysteries  in  the  homes  of  prominent  fami- 

M  Vid.  MSL.  330  ff.  Cf.  DeVos  5.     "Sycophanta  .  .  .  erat  ToXIr**-"     In  the 
narrow  sense  of  the  term,  only,  would  this  be  true. 
"And.  1,15. 
"And.  1,  11,  17. 
69  And.  1,  59. 
•°  Ant.  5,  34. 
81  And.  1,  27. 
"Ibid.  13  ff. 
M  Ibid.  35. 


42  SY<  nl'H  \M  N    l\    \  [HENS 

lies,  thai  antedated  the  Mutilation,  and  whii  b  might  reveal  the  iden- 
tity of  tho  e  who  were  re  pon  ible  for  the  latter  sacrilege.  Those 
wlu.  c  names  were  given  by  these  informers  fled  as  soon  as  they  could, 
without  waiting  for  trial.  Though  Andromachus  gave  no  informa- 
tion about  the  Mutilation  he  received  the  firsl  prize  for  being  the 
first  to  appear  and  Teucer  received  the  -econd.64  The  information 
(aitjjwis)  that  Diodides  gave  to  the  Boulfi  deserves  to  be  discussed 
in  full." 

He  had  risen  early  one  morning  to  go  to  Laurium  to  get  the 
money  that  was  due  him  for  a  slave  that  belonged  to  him  and  who 
was  working  in  the  silver  mines  there.  The  moon  was  very  bright; 
so  bright  in  fact  that  he  had  mistaken  the  time  and  risen  earlier  than 
he  intended,  thinking  that  it  was  dawn.  When  he  came  near  to  the 
Propylaeum  of  Dionysus  he  saw  a  large  body  of  men  coming  down 
from  the  Odeum  into  the  Orchestra.  He  was  very  much  disturbed 
at  the  sight  and  withdrew  into  the  shadow  of  a  column.  Most  of  the 
men  he  could  recognize  in  the  bright  moonlight  and  he  estimated 
that  there  were  about  three  hundred  of  them.  At  length  he  went  on 
to  Laurium.  When  he  returned  the  next  day  he  heard  of  the  Mu- 
tilation of  the  Hermae.  He  at  once  suspected  that  the  men  whom 
he  had  seen  were  the  guilty  ones  and  saw  a  chance  of  receiving  the 
reward  that  was  offered.  But  his  first  step  was  not  toward  securing 
the  reward  offered,  but  blackmail.  When  he  saw  Euphemus  the  son 
of  Callias  sitting  in  a  brazier  shop  he  took  him  aside  to  the  Hephaes- 
taeum  and  told  him  that  he  had  seen  and  recognized  him  and  the 
others  the  night  before  and  could  report  their  names.  He  pre- 
ferred however  to  be  friends  with  them.  Therefore  he  was  ready  to 
keep  still  if  they  would  make  it  worth  his  while.  He  was  no  more 
anxious  to  get  money  from  the  city  than  from  them.  After  some 
meetings  with  the  members  of  Euphemus'  family,  to  which  Andocides 
belonged,  he  was  promised  two  talents  as  hush-money.  They  had 
however  not  kept  their  agreement  and  therefore  he  was  informing 
against  them.  He  gave  in  the  names  of  forty-two  men,  eight  of 
whom  were  relatives  of  Andocides.  Two  of  those  reported  were 
members  of  the  Boule.  These  were  allowed  to  give  bail.  But  they 
at  once  left  the  city  and  exposed  their  bondsmen  to  the  danger  of 
punishment.  Andocides,  who  with  the  other  members  of  his  family 
was  put  into  prison,  finally  turned  state's  evidence  and  explained  the 

94  Ibid.  27. 
"  Ibid.  37. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  43 

Mutilation  by  showing  that  it  was  the  work  of  the  club  of  Euphiletus  of 
which  he  was  a  member.  He  (Andocides)  had  opposed  the  deed 
when  it  was  first  discussed,  but  while  he  was  too  ill  to  leave  his  bed, 
the  club  had  committed  the  outrage  under  the  leadership  of  Euphile- 
tus. His  story  was  accepted  as  true.  Dioclides  who  had  been 
treated  as  "  the  savior  of  the  city"  was  called  in  and  questioned.  He 
soon  acknowledged  that  he  had  given  false  information.  He  had 
been  "persuaded"  to  do  so  by  Alcibiades  of  Phege  (a  cousin  of  the 
other  and  more  famous  Alcibiades)  and  Amiantus  of  Aegina  (appar- 
ently to  protect  the  famous  Alcibiades  who  was  in  danger  of  suffering 
by  being  identified  with  the  guilty  ones.)     Dioclides  was  put  to  death. 

Even  if  the  story  told  by  Dioclides  is  entirely  fictitious  the  methods 
by  which  he  tried  to  extort  two  talents  from  the  family  of  Callias 
must  be  regarded  as  usual.  Plutarch  in  his  Life  of  Alcibiades66 
states  that  Dioclides'  reference  to  the  bright  moonlight  made  all 
men  of  understanding  cry  out  upon  the  thing.  It  was  new  moon 
that  night.67  "  But  the  people  were  as  eager  as  ever  to  receive  further 
accusations  nor  was  their  first  heat  abated,  but  they  instantly  seized 
and  imprisoned  every  one  that  was  accused."68  The  probabilities  are 
that  if  Andocides  had  not  turned  state's  evidence  Dioclides  could 
have  gone  on  threatening  citizen  after  citizen  with  information.  He 
had  made  the  number  of  those  whom  he  said  he  had  seen  large  enough. 
After  the  success  of  his  first  information  no  one  whom  he  threatened 
would  run  the  risk  of  allowing  his  name  to  be  reported. 

The  nature  of  the  dokimasia  and  the  euthynae  made  them 
unusually  good  occasions  for  effective  threats  of  blackmail.  Of  the 
four  kinds  of  dokimasiae,69  that  of  magistrates  offered  more  chances 
than  the  others.  Every  official  whether  elected  by  show  of  hands  or 
selected  by  lot  was  forced  to  undergo  this  examination  before  entering 
on  the  duties  of  his  office.70     The   dokimasia   might  in  all   cases 

••  Plut.  Alcib.  20. 

67  Grote  [Hist.  Greece  Vol.  VII,  199  note)  is  of  the  opinion  that  Plutarch  is 
wrong. 

88  Dioclides  had  become  the  "typical  Liar"  of  his  day.     Plutarch  quotes  a 
few  lines  from  the  comic  poet  Phrynichus  that  bring  this  out. 
"O  dearest  Hermes!  only  do  take  care, 
And  mind  you  do  not  miss  your  footing  there; 
Should  you  get  hurt,  occasion  may  arise, 
For  a  new  Dioclides  to  tell  lies." 
"Vid.  LipsiusA  R.  270. 
70  Arist.  Const,  of  Athens  55,  2. 


1 1  svi  "I'll  v.<  1   r.   -nil 

eventually  come  before  the  courts.71  [n  all  probability,  the  same, 
or  uearly  the  Bame,  questions  were  asked  of  all  candidates.71  After 
the  candidate  had  answered  the  questions  he  introduced  witnesses 
to  prove  the  truth  of  his  statements.  The  presiding  officer  then 
aske  I,  '  I  one  wish  to  accuse  this  man?"     One  needs  hut  to 

recall  th<  nritfa  which  the  average  Athenian  entered  into 

litigation  to  realize  that  accusers  would  not  be  slow  in  appearing. 
i  from  this  examination,  as  wen'  the  jurors,  was  considered  a 
greal  privilege.  This  in  itself  shows  to  what  extent  the  accusations 
at  the  dokimasia  were  dreaded.  The  ris  /3o6XeTtu  KaT^yoptlv'  did  not 
mean  that  the  accusation  should  be  limited  to  attacks  on  the  answers 
that  the  candidates  gave  to  the  questions  asked.  Mantitheus  de- 
scribes the  situation  that  met  the  candidate  when  he  says  that  in 
dokimasiae  one  is  expected  to  give  an  account  of  one's  whole  life.73 
There  was  no  means  of  anticipating  all  charges  that  might  be  made. 
The  course  that  a  sycophant  would  follow  would  be  not  to  rise  up 
unexpectedly  and  accuse  the  candidate.  There  was  nothing  to  gain 
for  him  in  that  way.  He  would  probably  threaten  the  prospective 
official  before  the  examination  and  let  it  be  understood  that  he 
intended  to  appear  at  the  dokimasia  unless  he  were  paid  to  keep 
silent.  Most  candidates  would  undoubtedly  be  anxious  to  buy 
off  accusers  both  in  order  to  secure  the  office  and  to  avoid  un- 
pleasant disclosures.74  After  the  restoration  of  the  democracy  the 
chances  of  being  threatened  with  charges  at  the  dokimasia  were 
increased  by  the  tendency  to  introduce  into  all  trials  and  especially 
dokimasiae,  accusations  of  participation  in  the  oligarchy  and  above 
all  of  some  connection  with  the  deeds  of  the  Thirty.75  The  popular 
jury  was  naturally  ready  to  reject  a  man  whose  past  could  be  con- 
nected even  remotely  with  that  body.76     In  fact  the  dokimasia  was 

71  For  the  discussion  of  the  two  views  on  this  subject  vid.  Gilbert  219  (Eng.), 
and  Lipsius  op.  cit.  271. 

•■  Arist.  Const,  of  Athctis  55,  3;  Dinarch.  2,  17;  Gilbert  be.  cit.;  Lys.  31,  1-2. 

"Lys.  16,  9;  Lys.  24,  1. 

74  It  would  be  dangerous  to  allow  even  a  groundless  charge  to  come  to  trial. 

76  The  (xt)  nvqcFucaKiiv  of  the  Amnesty  did  prevent  law-suits  based  on  accusa- 
tions of  this  kind.  It  could  not  however  prevent  the  introduction  of  such  matters 
into  trials  that  dealt  primarily  with  other  things. 

76  Accusation  of  participation  in  the  deeds  of  the  Thirty  are  introduced 
into  all  the  speeches  of  Lysias  that  deal  with  the  dokimasia;  Lys.  16;  31,  17; 
26,8,  10,  16,  17. 


SYCOPHANCY  IX  ATHENS  45 

regarded  as  the  means  of  keeping  out  of  office  those  who  had  abused 
power  under  an  oligarchy.77 

Even  greater  concern  was  caused  magistrates  by  the  euthvnae.78 
The  privilege  of  being  awireWvvoi,  the  prized  possession  of  the  jurors, 
was  the  envy  of  all  magistrates  in  Athens.79  The  special  importance 
of  the  punishment  of  guilty  officials  is  set  forth  by  Demosthenes 
in  his  prosecution  of  Aristogiton.80  "Through  them  the  state 
cannot  help  being  either  injured  if  they  are  vicious  or  on  the  other 
hand  greatly  benefitted  if  they  are  virtuous  and  choose  to  observe 
the  laws.  ...  In  like  manner  the  errors  of  private  men  do  injury 
not  to  the  multitude  but  to  themselves,  whereas  those  of  magistrates 
and  statesmen  reach  the  whole  people  and  therefore  Solon  ordered 
that  punishments  be  speedy  for  official  personages  and  political  lead- 
ers." Timocrates  and  Androtion  are  even  accused  of  ne^li^ence 
because  in  their  thirty  years  of  public  life  they  had  never  seen  fit  to 
bear  the  duties  of  citizenship  properly  by  accusing  officials  who  did 
wrong.81  Such  a  sentiment,  if  it  found  a  response  in  the  hearts  of  the 
jurors,  would  tend  to  make  the  euthvnae  especially  searching. 

Officials  were  not  only  examined  at  the  end  of  their  term  of  office 
but  they  were  compelled  to  pass  in  their  accounts  every  Prytany.82 
In  addition  to  this,  at  the  nvpia.  eKKXrjaia,  the  question  was  put  to  the 
assembly  as  to  whether  the  officials  seemed  to  be  doing  their  duties 
well.83  This  offered  any  citizen  a  chance  to  bring  charges  against  any 
official  whomsoever.  If  these  charges  were  considered  serious 
enough  the  matter  was  given  over  to  court  for  trial.  However,  to 
judge  from  the  number  of  references  to  the  final  audit,  it  seems  that 
it  was  on  that  occasion  that  charges  were  usually  made.  Whatever 
the  procedure  at  the  euthvnae  was  it  is  certain  that  here  too,  as  well 
as  at  the  dokimasia,  any  citizen  was  given  the  chance  to  accuse.  All 
officials  whether  guilty  or  not  would  dread  such  a  public  ordeal. 
The  temptation  to  buy  off  one's  probable  accuser  would  be  strong.84 

77  Lys.  26,  9.  It  is  possible  that  a  rejected  candidate  incurred  a  partial 
disfranchisement.  Vid.  Dem.  25,  30;  Gilbert  (Eng.)  220  n.  41;  Lipsiua  A.  R. 
275-276. 

78  Vid.  Lipsius  A.  R.  286  ff.  for  discussion  of  the  Euthynae;  also  Gilbert 
(Eng.)  227. 

"  Ar.  Wasps  587  ff. 

80  (Dem.)  26,  1-4. 

81  Dem.  24,  173-74. 

82  Arist.  Const,  of  Athens.  45,  2;  48,  3;  Lysias  30,  5. 
"Arist.  Const,  of  Alliens,  43,  2;  61,  2. 

84  The  dread  that  officials  fell  over  the  euthynae  is  expressed  in  true    x> 
phanic  style  by  Philocleon's  anger  at  the  cock  wh  >  wakes  him  too  late,   "bribed 
by  those  liable  to  account  (virevOwoi)"  Wasps  101-102. 


•Id  BYCOPH  \iiik\s 

On.-  of  the  mosl  striking  examples  of  the  Bycophanl  who  extorted 
money  from  officials  by  threat  -  oi  a<  <  usal  ion  al  I  he  euthynae  is  that  of 
Phili  rhose  methods  have  been  discu  ied  above.     He  marie  a 

busim  torting  money  from  inrcbOwi 

Vristogiton  another  professional  sycophant  attacked  Demosthenes 
twite  ai  i  !h-  cut  liyiiac."  According  to  Acschines,  'I  iman  hus  extorted 
mone)  from  officials  systematically.  "When  he  became  one  of  the 
public  auditors  (XoyiaTrjs)  he  did  the  city  a  great  deal  of  harm  by 
accepting  bribes  from  such  as  had  been  unjust  in  the  conduct  of  their 
offices.  Hut  he  was  more  active  as  a  blackmailer  at  the  time  of  the 
euthynae  against  those  who  had  done  no  wronr 

One  of  the  uses  for  which  the  sycophant  could  be  employed 
according  to  Dicaeopolis  was  to  serve  "as  a  lamp  to  show  up  those 
who  are  to  render  their  accounts."88  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is 
the  only  field  of  activity  mentioned  by  name  in  this  connection. 
The  others  are  all  included  in  rpi7rr?)p  8iku)i>.  In  the  Knights  Cleon 
is  represented  as  an  expert  at  the  business  of  "picking  the  ripe 
vireiidwoi."  Like  a  fig-gatherer  he  tests  with  a  squeeze  which  are 
green  and  hard,  which  are  ripe  and  luscious,  and  which  are  not  quite 
ripe.  Evidently  those  who  are  "fully  ripe"  are  the  ones  worth 
"pulling"  for  the  money  they  will  pay.39 

How  common  it  was  to  "worry"  magistrates  at  the  time  of  their 
final  audit  is  shown  by  the  proemium  of  Aeschines  vs.  Timarchus. 
"I  have  never  indicted  any  citizen,  gentlemen,  nor  worried  any  of 
them  at  the  euthynae."90  The  insertion  of  this  in  a  proemium  inten- 
ded to  prove  non-litigiousness  is  very  significant.  It  was  one  of  the 
fields  of  activity  with  which  the  sycophant  was  naturally  connected. 

Private  suits  (5u-at)  offered  the  sycophant  fewer  chances  of  threat- 
ening prosecution,  since  only  the  person  immediately  concerned  could 
enter  such  suits.  In  spite  of  this,  the  active  sycophant,  who  watched 
his  opportunities,  found  occasions  for  gain  in  this  field.  "In  the 
same  way  every  one  has  been  in  the  habit  of  making  groundless 
attacks  upon  me  (pf  ovnoipavrtiv) .     They  enter  5ikcu  in  the  interest 

85  Antiphon  6.  43. 

88  Dem.  25,  37. 
87  Aesch.  1,  107. 

8S  At.  Achar.  936  ff. 

89  Ar.  Knights  259-60.  Cf.  ibid.  824.  "Whenever  you  (Demus)  are  yawning, 
he  nips  off  the  tender  tips  of  the  audits  and  bolts  them."     (Merry). 

90  Aesch.  1,1. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  47 

of  private  wrongs,  they  make  charges  in  the  interest  of  matters  that 
affect  the  state,  and  spend  more  time  in  maligning  my  father  than  in 
proving  the  truth  of  their  affidavit;  and  they  disregard  the  laws  to 
such  an  extent  that  they  think  it  right  to  exact  from  me  penalty  for 
the  wrongs  that  they  say  you  suffered  from  him."91  The  nature  of  the 
courts  made  it  possible  for  such  attacks  to  be  successful.  A  profes- 
sional sycophant,  with  his  expert  knowledge  of  law,  could  un- 
doubtedly extort  money  by  threats  of  well-founded  or  groundless 
Sinai.  The  notorious  Callimachus  was  extremely  successful  in  forcing 
such  settlements.92 

Cases  of  felonious  wounding  (5t/cat  rpav/jLaros)  "seem  to  have  been 
notorious  as  instruments  of  false  accusation."93  Aeschines  charges 
Demosthenes  with  having  brought  such  a  case  against  Demomeles. 
He  even  says  that  this  was  one  of  his  "habitual  villanies."94  In 
the  course  of  his  litigation  with  Boeotus,  Mantitheus  was  brought 
before  the  Areopagus  on  this  charge  by  Boeotus.  The  accusation 
was  proved  false  beyond  a  doubt.95 

Homicide  cases  (5ikcu  <pbvov)  and  those  allied  to  them  (e.g.  ^ap- 
nanwv)  could  also  be  the  instruments  of  false  accusation.  The  prose- 
cution of  the  choregus  by  Philocrates  was  of  that  character.*5  Per- 
haps the  most  famous  case  is  that  in  which  the  sycophant  Callima- 
chus was  involved.97 

A  sycophant  could  urge  into  litigation  a  person  who  had  the  right 
to  bring  a  Bikt],  by  promising  his  assistance.  His  financial  gain  in 
such  cases  would  be  the  remuneration  that  he  received  for  this 
assistance.  Melas  persuaded  Dicaeogenes  to  sue  for  the  estate  of  his 
adoptive  father  and  then  gave  him  valuable  aid  when  the  case  came 
to  trial.  The  agreement  in  this  instance  was  that  he  should  receive 
a  share  of  the  proceeds  if  the  suit  was  successful.98  A  somewhat 
similar  transaction  is  related  in  the  case  vs.  Callides.  The  latter 
is  said  to  have  stooped  to  unscrupulous  methods  in  his  efforts  at 
getting  possession  of  a  farm   that  belonged   to  his   neighbor,    the 

91  Isoc.  16.  1-2.     The  speaker  is  the  younger  Alcibiades. 
9JIsoc.  18,  52  ff. 
"Jebb  Ail.  Or.  Vol.1,  p.  277. 
94  Aesch.  2,  93;  3,  51. 
86  (Dem.)  40,  32. 
M  Ant.  6. 

"Isoc.  18,  52.     Vid.  p.  78.     Two  speeches  (3  and  4)  of  Lysias  deal  with  this 
crime.     Cf.  also  (Dem.)  59,  9. 
98  Isaeus  5,  7-9,  40. 


IS  BY(  OPH 

speaker.     He  had  brought  several  the  latti  dnst 

one  <>i  his  slaves.  Nf  had  also  "suborned  his  cousin  to  claim  it." 
The  cousin  evidently  had  legal  righl  to  enter  the  suit."  One  need 
noi  assume  thai  Callicles  or  his  cousin  are  sycophants.  They  may 
table  citizens.  Bui  the  methods  of  which  they  are 
accused  make  it  clear  what  unprincipled  p  irs  mi^ht  do.1  ' 

The  Sycophant  as 

The  sycophants'  field  of  activity  was  not  limited  to  such  work  as 
they  did  on  their  own  initiative.  Their  services  were  also  at  the 
disposal  of  those  who  wished  to  hire  them.     They  could  be  used  as 

■>ts  for  various  purposes:  (1)  to  bring  suits  against  personal  or 
public  enemies;  (2)  to  introduce  laws  and  decrees;  (3)  to  act  as  advo- 
cates; (4)  to  serve  as  witnesses;  (5)  to  bribe  juries  and  ecclesiasts; 
(6)  to  use  undue  influence  on  officials;  (7)  to  do  work  of  more  or  less 
questionable  nature,  witli  which  those  who  employed  them  did  not 
desire  to  be  openly  connected,  or  which  they  were  unable  to  do. 
Not  all  of  these  services  were  in -themselves  illegitimate  or  reprehen- 
sible; it  is  the  professional  character  of  the  service  that  marks  the 
sycophant  in  public  estimation. 

An  easy  way  of  avoiding  the  inconvenience  that  a  public  suit  would 
entail  was  to  hire  some  one  to  undertake  it.  This  is  well  illustrated  in 
Apollodorus  vs.  Xicostratus.1  The  litigious  Apollodorus  is  anxious 
to  prove  that  the  motive  for  his  awoypcupr)  against  Nicostratus  is 
personal  revenge.2.  In  proof  of  his  assertion  he  cites  the  fact  that  he 
has  brought  the  suit  in  his  own  name.  By  so  doing  he  exposed  him- 
self to  the  chances  of  fine  and  partial  disfranchisement.3  This 
danger  he  might  have  avoided  for  he  was  not  "unable  for  lack  of 
friends  and  means  to  find  a  person  to  undertake  the  information."4 

99  55,  1-2. 

ioo  DeVos  (p.  30)  thinks  that  the  8Lkt)  was  a  common  method  of  attack  when 
possible,  but  that  the  ypaw  was  preferred  because  the  sycophant  gained  a  greater 
reputation  thereby;  the  jurors  would  be  more  concerned  if  they  felt  that  the 
defendant  was  guilty  of  some  attack  "reipubl.  instituta."  It  is  undoubtedly 
true  that  the  sycophant  could  appeal  vigorously  to  the  jurors  as  guardians  of  the 
constitution  in  a  ypa.<fij.     The  nature  of  the  SUrj  was  however  the  chief  hindrance. 

1  (Dem.)  S3. 

2  In  order  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  sycophancy. 

'  In  case  he  failed  to  receive  the  necessary  fifth  of  the  votes. 
4  Lor.  cil.  1  (Kennedy). 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  49 

For  such  service  the  sycophant  with  his  expert  knowledge  of  the 
laws  and  the  courts  was  the  most  desirable  agent  that  could  be 
procured.  In  many  cases  he  would  be  more  likely  to  be  successful 
in  the  prosecution  than  his  less  experienced  employer.  Archedemus 
was  chosen  by  Crito  as  his  agent  because  he  was  iraros  eiirt'iu  re  /cat 
7rpa£cu.5  The  agent  was  also,  to  be  sure,  in  danger  of  the  fine  and 
atimia.  But  the  remuneration  that  he  received  for  his  services  as 
agent  would  compensate  him,  in  part  at  least,  for  the  worst  that 
might  happen.6  In  some  ways  then  it  might  be  more  lucrative  for  a 
sycophant  to  act  as  agent  for  others  than  to  bring  prosecution  on  his 
own  account. 

The  sycophant  was  apparently  most  often  hired  for  the  bringing 
of  "counter  suits."7  These  were  suits  brought  against  an  accuser 
or  against  some  one  who  was  expected  to  be  an  accuser.  It  was 
naturally  desirable  to  have  good  grounds  for  starting  such  a  case, 
but  an  utterly  baseless  charge  might  serve  the  purpose.  The  leading 
case  of  such  a  counter-suit  is  that  of  Philocrates  vs.  the  Choregus  al- 
ready discussed.8  The  plaintiff  was,  as  has  been  shown,  a  professional 
sycophant,  who  made  a  practice  of  attacking  magistrates  at  the  euthv- 
nae.  A  set  of  officials  were  facing  trial  on  an  eisangelia  brought  by 
the  choregus.  They  were  very  anxious  to  dispose  of  the  choregus  so 
that  he  could  not  appear  and  accuse  them  when  the  case  came  to  trial. 
Just  on  the  eve  of  the  trial  very  unusual  circumstances  made  it  pos- 
sible for  them  to  use  Philocrates  as  their  agent  against  the  choregus. 
A  young  boy,  the  brother  of  Philocrates,  who  was  a  member  of 
the  chorus  for  which  the  choregus  was  responsible,  suddenly  died. 
Philocrates  and  the  other  relatives  did  not  think  of  attaching  any 
blame  to  the  choregus.  But  the  officials  who  were  looking  for  a 
chance  to  get  rid  of  the  choregus  saw  an  opportunity  of  doing  so  now. 
They  employed  Philocrates  to  accuse  him  of  responsibility  for  the 

6Xen.  Mem.  II,  9.4. 
•  Cf.  note  12  below. 

7  Vid.  Calhoun,  Athenian  Clubs  in  Politics  and  Litigation,  p.  48. 

8  Ant.  6.     An  effort  on  the  part  of  Midias  to  check  Demosthenes'  pi 

tion  of  him  is  exactly  like  this,  except  that  he  did  not  employ  B  profe  aonal 
sycophant  in  this  case.  Aristarchus,  the  son  of  Moschus,  was  accused  of  the 
murder  of  Nicodemus  of  Aphidna.  Midias  went  to  the  relatives  who  had  begun 
prosecution  and  offered  them  money  if  they  would  accuse  Demosthenes  ol  the 
murder.  The  embarrassment  caused  by  this  was  considerable,  VIA  Goodwin, 
Demosthenes  vs.  Midias,  notes  to  114,  117,  for  Demosthenes"  part  in  this  matter. 


50  SYCOPHANI  v  I'.'  ATHENS 

boy's  death.  Their  Bcheme  was  unsuccessful  however  since  Philo- 
crates  was  unable  to  gel  the  ca  e  entered  with  the  Basileus. 

Several  months  later,  after  Philocrates  and  the  choregua  had  been 
reconciled,  the  former  was  again  hired  to  attack  the  choregus  on  the 
same  charge  as  before.  The  latter  had  detected  another  set  of 
officials  in  the  embezzlemenl  of  public  funds.  In  the  hope  of  es- 
caping trial  they  paid  Philoi  rates  thirty  minae  to  renew  his  prosecu- 
tion of  the  choregus.  The  choregus  was  brought  to  trial  and  accord- 
ingly  prevented  from  prosecuting  the  officials.9  Philocrates'  repu- 
tation as  an  unscrupulous  litigant  and  blackmailer  was  probably  the 
thing  that  called  the  attention  of  the  two  sets  of  officials  to  the 
possibility  of  using  him  as  their  hireling. 

Another  counter-suit  brought  by  a  sycophant  as  agent  is  men- 
tioned in  Demosthenes  vs.  Midias.10  In  order  to  create  a  sentiment 
against  his  prosecutor,  Midias  had  hired  "that  rascal  of  all  work, 
that  ragamuffin  Euctemon"  to  accuse  him  of  desertion  of  post. 
This  was  solely  for  effect.  Midias  did  not  intend  that  the  case  should 
ever  be  brought  to  trial.  He  merely  wanted  Demosthenes  to  suffer 
from  the  notoriety  that  came  to  him  from  having  his  name  pub- 
licly posted  as  a  deserter.11  In  fact  Euctemon  dropped  the  proceed- 
ings and  was  accordingly  partially  disfranchised.  No  statement  of 
the  amount  paid  to  Euctemon  by  Midias  is  made.  However,  since 
the  failure  to  prosecute  a  public  case  after  it  was  once  begun  entailed 
a  fine  of  1000  drachmas  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  remu- 
neration was  more  than  sufficient  to  cover  the  fine.12 

An  instance  alluded  to  in  the  case  of  Theomnestus  vs.  Neaera  et 
Stephanus  will  show  with  what  realism  and  enthusiasm  a  hired  agent 
conducted  a  case.13 

Cephisophon  and  Apollophanes  were  anxious  to  secure  the  ban- 
ishment of  Apollodorus.     To  bring  this  about  they  employed  Ste- 

9  The  prosecution  of  the  officials  was  however  carried  on  by  some  one  else. 
Ant.  6,50. 

10Dem.  21,  103. 

11  This  was  often  the  purpose  of  counter  suits.  Conviction  or  even  the  trial 
of  the  case  was  not  important.  The  real  effect  desired  was  the  discontinuance 
of  the  case  that  the  counter  suit  was  brought  to  meet. 

13  Marchant  suggests  that  the  1000  drachmae  paid  by  Callias  to  Cephisius 
were  intended  to  defray  the  possible  fine  that  he  might  incur  if  he  failed  to  win  the 
fifth  of  the  votes  in  the  indictment  of  Andocides.     (Notes  on  And.  I,  121.) 

u  (Dem.)  59,9-10.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  larger  part  of  the  speech 
was  delivered  by  Apollodorus  as  owr\-yopos. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  51 

phanus  to  manage  the  business.  He  was  notorious  for  his  ability 
in  matters  of  this  kind  and  would  probably  be  more  successful  than 
they.  If  he  was  successful  they  would  be  saved  from  any  notoriety 
that  might  grow  out  of  the  case. 

Stephanus  accused  him  of  having  dealt  a  blow  to  a  slave  woman 
from  the  results  of  which  she  died.  "He  suborned  some  slaves  and 
got  them  to  represent  that  they  were  Cyrenaeans,  and  gave  notice 
to  Apollodorus  to  appear  on  a  charge  of  murder  in  the  court  of  the 
Palladium.  There  he  conducted  the  prosecution,  and  affirmed  on 
oath  that  Apollodorus  had  killed  the  woman  with  his  own  hand, 
imprecating  destruction  upon  himself  and  his  race  and  his  house, 
affirming  facts  which  never  took  place,  and  which  he  never  saw  nor 
heard."14 

During  the  course  of  the  trial  his  perjury  was  revealed  and  the 
names  of  his  employers  disclosed.     Needless  to  say,  he  lost  the  case. 

The  use  of  the  courts  as  a  political  weapon  also  gave  employment 
to  the  sycophant  who  was  willing  to  act  as  agent.15  This  was  es- 
pecially true  in  the  Fourth  Century  when  the  feeling  between  politi- 
cal parties  was  exceedingly  strong.  A  convenient  method  of  dis- 
posing of  a  political  rival  was  to  bring  suit  against  him  on  some 
charge  or  other.  The  notorious  Aristogiton  served  as  the  paid  agent 
of  the  pro-Philip  party  in  bringing  seven  ypcupai  against  Demos- 
thenes and  in  two  attacks  at  the  euthynae.16  His  Graphe  Paranomon 
against  Hyperides  after  Chaeronea  had  undoubtedly  a  similar  origin.17 
It  is  not  probable  that  all  the  Graphae  Paranomon  for  which  the 
sycophant  Theocrines  was  responsible  were  brought  on  his  own 
initiative.  The  circumstances  connected  with  his  attack  on  the 
decree  proposed  by  Thucydides  make  it  clear  that  it  was  instigated  by 
the  party  that  favored  Philip.18  The  fact  that  Theocrines  devoted 
so  much  of  his  efforts  to  Graphae  Paranomon  made  him  a  suitable 
agent  for  such  work. 

It  is  well  known  that  some  of  the  most  bitter  political  speeches 
written  by  Demosthenes  were  delivered  by  otherwise  unknown  speak- 
ers.    As  justification  of   their  suits   they   referred   to   the   personal 

M  (Kennedy.) 

18  For  the  importance  of  the  courts  in  the  political  field,  vid.  Headlam,  Election 
by  Lot,  p.  35  ff.;  Calhoun  98  ff. 
»  Dem.  25,  37. 
"(Dem.)  26,  11. 
18  (Dem.)  58,  36  ff. 


>2  BY<  0PHAN4  v  in  Aim 

enmity  thai  existed  between  them  and  their  opponents,  the  targets 
of  Demosthenes'  pen.     it  is  hardly  likely  that  in  the  ca  (de- 

mon ct  Diodorus  vs.  Androtion  andw.  Timocrates?9  and  thai  of  Euthy- 
cles vs,  Aristocrates*0  the  plaintiffs  would  have  risked  prosecution  that 
entailed  so  many  dangers,  if  their  only  compensation  was  the  satis- 
faction iif  securing  the  conviction  of  their  personal  enemies.  It  is 
far  more  probable  that  men  in  the  position  in  which  Euctemon, 
Diodorus  and  Euthycles  found  themselves,  let  it  be  known  that  they 
could  be  employed  to  use  their  personal  enmity21  as  an  excuse  for 
attacking  certain  men  or  certain  policies.  This  seems  to  be  clearly 
the  case  in  the  suits  against  Androtion  and  Timocrates,  which  really 
deal  with  the  career  of  one  man,  Androtion.  In  availing  himself  of 
the  services  of  such  men  Demosthenes  was  merely  following  the 
usual  custom  in  Athens.22 

Agents  were  also  used  to  secure  the  introduction  of  laws  and  decrees. 
Leaders  of  rival  political  parties  found  this  a  convenient  method  of 
securing  their  desires  without  appearing  in  person.  Timocrates  is 
accused  of  having  been  hired  by  Androtion  and  his  associates  to 
introduce  a  law  which  operated  in  their  behalf.23  There  is  no  reason 
for  believing  the  statement  false.  "His  public  morality  seems  to 
have  been  such  as  to  fit  him  for  the  part  of  jackal  to  Androtion."24 
He  had  often  before  drawn  up  decrees  for  hire25  and  was  a  thoroughly 
practised  politician.  He  is  described  as  the  servant  of  Androtion 
and  his  comrades,  and  as  a  professional  hireling.26 

19  Dem.  22  and  24. 

20  Dem.  23. 

""Personal  enmity"  may  become  a  very  flexible  term  under  some  circum- 
stances. 

22  For  a  fuller  statement  of  this  attitude  of  Demosthenes  and  a  justification 
of  the  method  used,  vid.  Wayte's  intro.  to  the  speeches  vs.  Androtion  and  Timo- 
crates, p.  XXXII  ff.  Cf.  also  Kennedy  intro.  p.  164,  Vol.  Ill,  for  a  statement 
about  Euthycles. 

23  Dem.  24,  3.  The  fact  that  charges  of  this  sort  were  made  at  all,  shows  that 
the  habit  was  a  common  one. 

24  Wayte  intro.  xl,  w.  ref.  to  161. 

25  Dem.  24,  66,  203. 

™  Ibid.  14,  158,  200.  This  Timocrates  is  undoubtedly  the  same  as  the  one 
mentioned  in  Dem.  39  and  40  as  a  member  cf  the  club  of  Menecles  and 
Mnesicles.  He  was  one  of  the  associates  who  gave  false  testimony  for  Boeotus. 
This  membership  explains  much  of  his  activity  in  litigation.  Cf.  Schaefer, 
III,  2,  app.  p.  218.  Calhoun  80,  n.  1.  He  may  be  the  same  as  the  man  by 
that  name  who  acted  as  a  paid  supporter  of  Midias  in  his  litigation  with  De- 
mosthenes. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  53 

As  advocate  {avvriyopos)  the  unscrupulous  and  litigious  person 
might  be  a  very  valuable  helper.  Such  service  was  more  free  from 
danger  than  any  other  that  he  could  render  in  court.  The  advocate 
was  in  no  fear  of  prosecution  for  perjury  as  a  witness  was.27  How 
desirable  assistance  of  this  kind  was,  is  seen  from  Demosthenes  vs. 
MidiasP  The  former  says  that  the  majority  of  men  are  at  a  dis- 
advantage when  compared  with  men  like  Midias.  He  is  rich,  and  the 
rich  always  have  plenty  of  advocates  ready  to  defend  them  when  they 
are  on  trial.  Although  the  Athenian  law  forbade  the  acceptance  of 
remuneration  for  service29  of  this  kind,  it  is  plain  from  this  that  the 
hiring  of  advocates  was  not  at  all  unusual.  A  statement  of  Lycur- 
gus  shows  how  common  the  practice  was.30  "I  am  surprised  most  of 
all  at  those  who  are  not  related  by  either  ties  of  blood  or  friendship, 
but  still  act  as  hired  advocates  from  time  to  time31  for  those  who  are 
on  trial."     Advocacy  was  apparently  becoming  professional. 

In  the  prosecution  of  Andocides,  Cephisius  the  main  speaker  was 
assisted  by  at  least  two  advocates  (owriyopoi)  who  belonged  to  the 
cabal  against  the  defendant.  Of  these  Epichares,  a  professional 
sycophant,  was  said  to  have  been  paid  for  his  services.32  "Three 
talents  had  been  pledged  for  the  'speakers'  if  they  would  save  Er- 
gocles"  who  was  on  trial  for  embezzlement  of  public  funds.33  These 
"speakers"  were  probably  prominent  demagogues  who  were  willing 
to  hire  themselves  out  as  advocates.  That  they  expected  to  "save 
him"  by  speaking  in  his  behalf  is  clear  from  the  statement  that  they 
saw  the  temper  of  the  jurors  and  feared  to  appear  in  court. 

47  A  litigant  who  was  unable  to  manage  his  own  case,  either  because  of 
inexperience  or  inability  in  legal  affairs,  was  permitted  to  ask  the  court  to  allow 
his  friends  to  assist  him.  Such  assistants  were  termed  avv^yopoi.  For  complete 
statements  about  "advocates"  vid.  Bonner,  Evidence  11-12,  82;  cf.  also  Calhoun 
p.  85  ff.;  vid.  also  p.  64  below  for  this  activity  of  sycophants. 

28  Dem.  21,  112. 

20  (Dem.)  46,  26. 

30  c.  Leoc.  138. 

31  Whether  &ti  means  "always"  or,  as  often,  "from  time  to  time"  it  indicates 
a  marked  tendency  towards  professionalism. 

32  1.  101.  Advocates  are  suggested  in  And.  4,  15.  "Furthermore  he  is  not 
undefended  {tprjuos)  nor  tiiadU-nros,  since,  owing  to  his  wealth,  he  has  many  who 
will  come  to  his  aid."  Cf.  also  (Dem.)  44.  3,  where  the  opponents  arc  accused  of 
hiring  advocates. 

33  Lys.  29.6. 


M  svi  OPH 

Hired   v.  .vcrc  eves  more  common  than  hired  advocates. 

\.  ording  to  Demosthenes  the  rich  were  al  no  loss  for  witnesses, 
just  as  they  were  at  do  loss  f<>r  advocab 

Polyeuc  tus,  l  imo<  rates  and  l.n<  temon  were  paid  witnesses  in  the 
employ  of  Midiaa  againsl  Demosthenes,  in  addition  to  those  that  his 
club  furnished.1  <  metor  is  said  to  have  supplied  funds  to  his  brother- 
in-law  Aphobus  for  bribing  witne  hcmosthenes  accuses  Aes- 
chines  of  using  funds  that  he  received  from  Philip  of  Macedon  in 
hiring  men  to  give  testimony  for  him.37 

Many  of  these  hired  witnesses  probably  gave  testimony  only  on 
some  particular  case  and  never  appeared  as  witnesses  again.  They 
wuc  descending  to  the  methods  of  the  sycophant  for  that  occasion 
onlv.  1  here  were  some  however  who  made  a  practice  of  acting  as 
witnesses  and  were  virtually  professionals.  Such  were  the  members 
of  the  clubs  of  Menecles  and  Mnesicles  and  of  Melas.  They  gave 
testimony  for  their  own  associates  when  it  was  needed  and  undoubted- 
ly were  at  the  service  of  others  who  wished  to  hire  them.  Melas 
and  his  club  gave  financial  support  and  their  services  as  witnesses  to 
Dicaeogenes  on  the  understanding  that  they  receive  a  share  of  the 
estate  for  which  he  was  suing,  if  he  was  successful.1' 

Naturally  purchased  testimony  was  as  a  rule  perjured.  Most  of 
the  professional  witnesses  must  have  been  in  danger  of  a  blur)  \ptvbonap- 
TvpLcov.  Conviction  on  this  charge  meant  a  fine  and  possibly  a  partial 
disfranchisement.  Three  convictions  resulted  in  complete  atimia.39 
In  spite  of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  amount  of  perjured 
testimony  in  Athens  was  very  large,  even  if  we  allow  for  exaggeration 
on  the  part  of  the  orators  in  regard  to  it.  Much  of  this  must  have 
been  supplied  by  paid  witnesses.40 

The  bribing  of  jurors  and  ecclesiasts  was  often  accomplished 
through  paid  agents.  In  fact  there  existed  a  class  of  men  who, 
whether  they  engaged  in  other  kinds  of  practices  common  to  syco- 
phants or  not,  had  become  known  as  professional  jury-bribers  and 

u  Dem.  21,  112.  Xen.  Mem.  IV,  4,  1 1  ^crdrjcrai  ovv  irwirore  p.ov  fj  \ptvbop.a.pTvpovvTos 

f)    OVKOlfCLVTOVVTOS     ...  J 

"Dem.  21,  139. 
»  Dem.  29,  28. 

37  Dem.  19,  216. 

38  Vid.  Section  on  Clubs  and  Combinations  of  Sycophants,  p.  63  ff. 

»  Vid.  Bonner  Evidence  p.  91,  note  9,  w.  ref.  cited.     Cf.  CI.  Phil.  Vol.  XI,  365, 
Calhoun  'E7rt<nc7j^<is  and  the  SUrj  xpevdofxaprvpluv. 
40  Cf.  Calhoun  Athenian  Clubs,  p.  77  ff. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  55 

bribers  of  ecclesiasts.41  Such  professionals  could  accomplish  the 
desired  results  so  much  more  easily  than  inexperienced  men  that  they 
must  have  been  in  great  demand  when  anything  of  that  sort  was  to  be 
done.  Xenotimus42  and  Nicostratus43  are  the  best  examples  of  this 
profession.  The  former  was  available  for  other  kinds  of  question- 
able work.  He  is  described  as  the  one  who  "corrupts  laws,  bribes 
juries,  outrages  magistrates  and  is  the  cause  of  all  sorts  of  evil." 
The  litigious  Callimachus  found  him  a  suitable  assistant  in  con- 
nection with  one  of  his  false  accusations.44  He  had  entered  suit 
against  a  man  in  violation  of  the  Amnesty.  The  defendant  eni 
the  plea  that  the  case  was  not  maintainable.  The  natural  course  for 
Callimachus  to  follow  was  to  bring  a  61*77  \pev8o/j.apTvplui>  against  the 
witness  that  the  defendant  produced  in  support  of  his  plea  (irapaypaipri). 
But  he  had  no  confidence  in  his  case  and  feared  that  he  would  lose 
the  accusation  for  perjury  and  be  fined.  He  therefore,  with  the  assis- 
tance of  Xenotimus,  persuaded  the  magistrate  to  let  him  avoid  the 
usual  procedure  and  bring  a  new  suit  against  the  defendant  on  the 
same  charge  as  before. 

An  incident  somewhat  similar  to  this  is  narrated  in  Epichares  vs. 
Theocrines.*'0  The  father  of  the  latter  used  the  services  of  Ctesicles, 
the  metic,  a  \oyoypa<pos,  who  was  in  charge  of  the  case  of  his  opponent, 
to  avoid  paying  a  debt  that  was  due  the  state  from  a  court  judg- 
ment and  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  his  name  as  a  state  debtor. 

There  were  many  questionable  transactions  with  which  a  more 
or  less  prominent  Athenian  would  not  care  to  be  connected  openly. 
He  might  be  unable  to  accomplish  the  matter  by  his  own  effort-,  or 
he  might  prefer  to  keep  in  the  background  because  of  the  stigma 
attached  to  participation  in  the  affair.  For  such  a  task  the  sycophant 
was  valuable.  His  unscrupulousness  would  permit  him  to  go  to  any 
extreme  to  carry  a  matter  through,  and  his  familiarity  with  the  tricks 
of  litigation  enabled  him  to  manage  the  legal  side  if  any  trouble  of 
that  nature  arose. 

41  Ibid.  p.  75  ff. 

«Isoc.  18,  12. 

"Aesch.  1,  86.     Cf.  Calhoun  Athenian  Clubs,  p.  76. 

"Isoc.  18,  11  ff. 

46  (Dcm.)  58,  19.  So  Nicostratus  (Dem.  S3,  14)  was  accused  by  ApoUodonu 
of  having  joined  the  enemies  of  Apollodorus  and  obtained  a  jud  inst 

him  "through  Lycidas  the  miller."  Sandys  remarks.  "  ["bis  Lycidas  was  cither  a 
merely  nominal  accuser  or  possibly  a  venal  arbitrator." 


5(5  SYCQPH  '  i  m  ns 

Bankers  jeem  to  have  found  con  iderable  use  for  such  agents. 
Pythodorus  was  in  the  regular  employ  of  Pasion.4*  He  secured 
patrons  for  his  employer's  bank  and  introduced  them  to  him.  He 
"would  do  and  say  anything  for  Pa  ion."41  It  is  very  probable  that 
it  was  with  his  assistance  thai  Pasion  succeeded  in  tampering  with  the 
contracl  that  he  and  the  stranger  from  the  Pontus  had  made  and 
deposited  with  a  third  party.1  That  he  would  not  hesitate  to  lend  bis 
efforts  to  such  a  deed  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  he  had  at  one  time 
broken  open  the  voting  urns  and  changed  the  names  of  those  nomi- 
nated for  judges  in  a  dramatic  confr 

Phormio,  Pasion's  successor  in  the  banking  business,  employed 
Stephanus  as  his  "agent.""  On  one  occasion,  when  Phormio's 
ships  were  detained  in  Byzantium,  Stephanus  went  there  and  pleaded 
Phormio's  cause  against  the  Chalcedonians.  This  use  of  an  assis- 
tant to  represent  a  merchant  in  foreign  parts  was  customary.  Aris- 
tophon  was  hired  by  Demon  and  his  business  partner  to  transact 
business  for  them  in  Cephallenia  when  the  ship  on  which  they  had 
loaned  money  was  in  danger  of  being  kept  from  returning  to  Athens.51 
Such  service  as  this  is  entirely  proper,  and  no  one  could  afford  to 
render  it  without  remuneration.  But  the  fact  that  Stephanus  was 
prosecuted  for  bearing  false  witness  in  the  interest  of  Phormio,  and 
charged  with  stealing  a  deposition  also  in  his  employer's  interest 
shows  that  he  was  thoroughly  unscrupulous.52  So  also  Aristophon 
is  called  one  of  noxdypuv  avdpooiruv  who  hang  about  the  Peiraeus  wait- 
ing for  employment  of  this  sort51.  His  real  character  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  he  sold  out  his  employer. 

When  Socrates'  friends  were  endeavoring  to  induce  him  to  break 
prison  and  leave  Athens  they  did  not  intend  to  conduct  him  out  of 
Attica  personally.53  They  planned  to  use  for  this  purpose  the  ser- 
vices of  men  expert  in  such  work,  and  who  were  willing  to  consider 
the  slight  compensation  they  received  sufficient  gain  for  any  difficulty 
that  might  arise.  Trouble  from  the  ever  watchful  sycophants  was 
expected.  Crito  contemplates  buying  these  off.  No  doubt  their 
agents  would  be  prepared  to  manage  this  for  them.54 

"Isoc.  17,  4.  aIbid.  33-34. 

«•  Ibid.  23.  «9  Ibid.  33-34. 

60  Dem.  45,  64.  sl  Dem.  32,  10-12. 

62  Dem.  45,  57-58.  53  Plato  Crito  44  E-45C. 

M  For  the  use  of  one  sycophant  to  outwit  another  vid.  Xen.  Mem.  II,  9. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  57 

The  method  followed  by  Callimachus  in  one  of  his  suits  illustrates 
another  use  for  which  men  of  this  character  could  be  employed. 
Just  before  the  case  in  question  was  to  come  to  trial  he  sent  his 
"friends"  {t&v  8e  xP^ixtvuv  rives)  around  to  talk  to  the  defendant  and 
frighten  him  into  making  a  settlement  by  emphasizing  the  dangers  of  a 
trial  and  the  ability  of  the  plaintiff.  The  term  "friends"  is  very 
elastic.  These  men  must  have  been  of  the  same  character  as  Calli- 
machus even  if  they  were  personal  friends  or  club  mem' 
The  phraseology  implies  that  these  methods  were  frequentlv  used  to 
influence  defendants.  Professional  sycophants  probably  resorted 
to  such  means  often  in  order  to  extort  money.  They  would  find  it 
exceedingly  easy  to  employ  other  sycophants  to  assist  them  in  this 
way.55 

Even  "information"  could  be  purchased.  The  notorious  Dioclides 
was  hired  to  make  his  famous  /z^iwis  during  the  excitement  following 
the  mutilation  of  the  Hermae.  The  remuneration  must  have  been 
high.  Otherwise  he  would  not  have  risked  the  dangers  of  false  infor- 
mation.56 

An  agent  was  employed  most  often,  no  doubt,  to  manage  some 
particular  case.  Under  some  circumstances  however,  the  necessity 
might  arise  of  having  a  permanent  assistant  of  this  sort.  Such  a 
situation  is  described  by  Xenophon.57 

Crito,  the  old  friend  of  Socrates,  had  found  that  it  was  impossible 
for  a  man  of  means  to  live  at  Athens  without  continual  danger  of 
law-suits.58  Socrates  advised  him  to  secure  the  services  of  a  good 
"watch  dog"  who  would  keep  him  free  from  the  attacks  of  these 
wolves  (sycophants).  Acting  on  this  suggestion  they  looked  for  a 
trustworthy  agent,  and  found  one  in  the  poor  but  able  Axchedemus.89 

55Isoc.  18,  9-10. 
68  And.  1.  65. 

67  Xen.  Mem.  II,  9. 

68  Crito  was  but  one  of  the  many  airp ay txoves  who  found  life  in  Athens 
unbearable  due  to  the  troubles  caused  by  the  sycophants. 

69  Marshall  (Notes  ad  loc.)  suggests  that  this  was  probably  the  AxchedemUfl 
who  took  such  an  active  part  against  the  generals  alter  the  battle  of  Argin 
(Xen.  Hell.  I,  7,  2.).     This  is  a  plausible  suggestion.     His  ingenuity  and  ability 
certainly  fitted  him  to  be  a  prominent  demagogue. 

There  is  nothing  in  Crito's  use  of  A<  bedemus,  «>r  in  the  tatter's  management 
of  Crito's  affairs  that  is  reprehensible.     For  that  reason  it  is  but  fair  to  admit 
that  while  employed  by  Crito  he  was  merely  employing  i  be  tri<  k-  of  .i  ij  i  ophanl 
It  was,  however,  his  reputatio  i  legal  trickery  thai  made  him 


58  BYCOPH  W   V    IN   AIIII.NS 

lie  was  glad  i<»  become  Crito'a  agent.  In  fact  he  was  but  one  of 
man}  who  would  have  been  ready  to  serve  Crito  in  this  way.  His 
method  of  defending  his  employer  was  to  turn  the  sycophants1  arts 
back  on  them.  He  succeeded  in  discovering  misdeeds  of  which  he 
could  accuse  them,  and  hunted  up  their  personal  enemies  to  help 
him  in  his  attacks.  Then  when  one  of  them  opened  suit  against 
Crito  he  started  a  counter  suit  againsl  him  on  the  basis  of  the  infor- 
mation he  had  already  gathered.  This  scheme  so  dismayed  the 
sycophants  that  they  were  willing  to  drop  their  prosecution-,  of  Crito 
and  settle  on  any  terms  that  Archedemus  might  name,  even  if  this 
meant  the  paying  of  money.  He  forced  the  sycophants  to  pay  for 
immunity  just  as  blackmailers  did.  lie  was  so  successful  that  Crito's 
friends  asked  for  the  loan  of  the  "watch-dog"  to  protect  them  too. 
Glad  to  favor  Crito,  whom  he  considered  a  valuable  patron,  Archede- 
mus gave  them  his  services  and  so  Crito  and  his  friends  lived  eu  -qavxiq.. 

Xenophon's  description  of  the  situation  makes  it  plain  that 
Archedemus  was  at  any  time  ready  to  use  his  art  for  the  interest  of 
Crito  and  his  friends.  In  this  sense  it  can  be  said  that  he  was  em- 
ployed by  Crito  as  his  regular  and  permanent  agent.  The  method 
by  which  Crito  kept  him  in  his  service  is  interesting.  He  did  his 
utmost  to  make  him  feel  friendly  towards  him.  He  sent  him  all 
sorts  of  produce  from  his  farm,  invited  him  to  the  sacrifices  that  he 
celebrated  and  "paid  him  similar  attentions."  Undoubtedly  he 
received  money  for  his  services  too.  Archedemus  felt  highly  honored 
by  the  attentions  of  Crito.  In  fact  he  asserted,  when  taunted  about 
his  servility,   that  he  preferred  to  be  the  hireling  of  such  xpWTo'<- 

Pythodorus60  and  Stephanus61  seem  to  have  been  regularly  em- 
ployed agents  as  Archedemus  was.  Stephanus  was  apparently  very 
familiar  with  the  duties  that  such  an  agent  of  a  banker  would  have. 
He  had  been  the  employee  of  another  banker  Aristolochus  before  he 
was  hired  by  Phormio.62 

The  employing  of  an  agent  was  however  not  without  its  dangers. 
An  unscrupulous  person,  after  becoming  familiar  with  his  employ- 
er's business  and  after  learning  his  weak  points  was  in  a  position  to 

the  logical  candidate  for  the  position  of  "watch-dog."  To  the  Athenian  his  position 
as  the  paid  employee  of  Crito  was  enough  to  confuse  him  with  the  ordinary 
sycophant. 

80  Isoc.  17,  passim. 

81  Dem.  45,  64  et  passim. 
8S  Dem.  45,  63. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  59 

turn  on  him  and  attack  him,  just  as  the  sycophants  that  he  was 
attempting  to  avoid.  This  was  one  of  the  objections  that  Crito 
offered  to  Socrates'  suggestion  of  hiring  a  "watch-dog,"  and  partly 
explains  Crito's  anxiety  in  keeping  Archedemus  friendly  to  him.63 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  was  a  problem  that  faced  many 
wealthy  employers.  The  sycophant  Aristophon  became  a  turn- 
coat against  the  interests  of  Demon,64  and  Aristogiton  is  described 
as  an  unreliable  employee  who  was  ready  to  sell  himself  to  the  other 
side.65 

Clubs  and  Combinations  of  Sycophants 
The  importance  of  Athenian  Clubs  in  the  legal  and  political  field 
has  been  adequately  discussed  by  Calhoun.1  He  has  shown  how  the 
members  of  these  organizations  assisted  their  associates  in  law-suits 
by  "taking  advantage  of  the  opportunities  which  the  Athenian  court 
system  afforded."2  Roughly  speaking  this  aid  to  litigants  was  of 
two  kinds,  money  contributions3  and  personal  service.4  The  latter 
was  rendered  in  many  ways. 

Two  effective  methods  of  using  the  courts  to  aid  their  friends  were 
"friendly  prosecutions"  and  "counter  suits."5  Out  of  court,  influence 
was  used  in  creating  a  sentiment  in  favor  of  their  comrades  or  against 
the  opponents,  in  dissuading  accusers  and  their  advocates,6  in  ob- 
taining information  regarding  the  opponent's  case  or  even  in  measures 
as  violent  as  assassination.  If  a  case  came  to  trial  they  were  ready  to 
bring  influence  to  bear  on  officials  and  jury,  to  suppress  evidence  and 
give  false  testimony  when  necessary  or  to  appear  as  advocates. 

In  the  political  field  club  members  could  aid  one  another  by  the 
use  of  litigation  as  a  political  weapon.7  Their  most  effective  assis- 
tance however  was  rendered  by  the  skilful  manipulation  of  delibera- 
tive assemblies.8 

83  Xen.  Mem.  II,  9,  3. 
"Dem.  32,  10  ff. 
85  Dem.  25,  46-47. 

1  Athenian  Clubs  in  Politics  and  Litigation,  (Chicago  1913).  DeVos  baa  .' 
rather  unsatisfactory  chapter  on  this  topic,  p.  49. 

2  Ibid.  p.  40.  '  P.  43. 
4  P.  46. 

6  P.  47-48.     Vid.  p.  49  above   for  fuller  discussion. 
•  Pp.  56-96.  7  Pp.  98-107. 

■  P.  126. 


60  BYCOPHANCY  in  ATHENS 

Since  club  affiliation  was  so  valuable  it.  was  but  natural  that 
sycophants  al  o  hould  combine  with  the  purpose  oi  increasing  the 
effectiveness  with  which  they  worked  individually.  Calhoun  refers 
to  such   organizations  of   sycophants  as  r  for  the  profits 

which  they  enabled  their  members  to  make  by  various  kinds  of  sharp 
practice  in  the  courl 

The  most  important  clul)  of  sycophants  (kpyacrTripiov  avKcxpavTuv)™ 
of  which  we  have  any  knowledge  is  thai  of  Menecles  and  Mnesicles.11 
Four  other  members  are  known:  Boeotus,,:  Timocrates,  Crito  and 

•  P.  23. 

10  Lipsius  (.1 .  R.  ')i)'K  a.  33)  di  sposes  of  this  club  in  summary  fashion:  "  Xichts 
mil  Hetairien  hat  das  tpyaarripiov  avKoipafrCov  bci  Demosth.  g.  Boiot.  I  2  S.  995,  8. 
II  9  S.  1010,  24  (vgl.  g.  Pant.  39  S.  978,  6.  g.  Zenoth.  10  S.  885  i.  A.)  zu  tun." 
That,  however,  is  merely  a  matter  of  terminology.  A  Club  of  sycophants  is 
undoubtedly  somewhat  different  from  an  kraipeia  in  its  original  and  limited 
sense.  In  this  sense  it  implies  an  organization  of  wealthy  and  influential  (cf. 
Calhoun  23)  men,  whom  similarity  of  tastes  and  politics  have  drawn  together. 
Social  features  are  prominent;  the  club  oath  is  of  importance;  members  are 
approximately  of  the  same  age;  the  club  has  definite  political  tendencies.  (Cf. 
Calhoun  10-39.) 

In  a  combination  of  Sycophants  political  convictions,  age  qualifications  and 
initiations  may  be  absent.  Social  features  probably  exist  as  they  might  in  any 
organized  group.  Some  form  of  oath  or  pledge  would  be  natural.  Mutual 
interest  and  similarity  of  tastes  there  surely  would  be.  They  unquestionably 
have  all  features  essential  to  making  them  permanent  clubs  whether  the  term 
ircupeia  is  applied  to  them  or  not.     (Cf.  Calhoun  23,  28,  80.) 

Such  organizations  of  sycophants  would  rarely,  if  ever,  receive  the  title  of 
traLpela  in  the  orators,  even  if  they  deserved  it.  When  mentioned  at  all  they  are 
the  subject  of  attack.  The  speakers  therefore  refuse  to  use  the  more  respectable 
and  dignified  "Club."     They  prefer  to  brand  them  as  "gangs"  {kpya<jTt)pia). 

The  ipyaarfipiov  that  Lipsius  refuses  to  consider  an  ercupeia  was  undoubtedly 
a  permanent  organization.  It  is  described  as  a  well  known  and  definitely  or- 
ganized group  of  men.  Menecles  and  Mnesicles  are  its  leaders;  other  members 
are  mentioned;  Boeotus  aids  these  men  regularly  in  their  suits,  just  as  they  aid 
him;  their  regular  business  is  litigation.  (Calhoun  95  and  note.) 

To  be  consistent,  Lipsius  should  also  exclude  the  clubs  of  Theocrines  and  of 
Melas.  To  these  he  raises  no  objection.  Perhaps  he  distinguishes  these  from 
the  organization  headed  by  Menecles  and  Mnesicles  because  they  are  not  called 
tpyaar-fipiop .  They  appear  as  oi  fxtra  tovtov  (Dem.)  58.7  or  oi  aulvov  <pi\oi  (Isaeus  5.8) 
instead.  But  the  kpyaar^piov  of  Menecles  and  Mnesicles  has  a  similar  designation, 
oi  irepi  Ketvov  (Dem.  39.13)  referring  to  Menecles. 

Any  such  distinction  based  on  the  mere  name  seems  trivial.  Surely  de- 
scription of  the  activities  of  a  group  of  men  is  more  valuable  in  deciding  its  status 
than  terminology. 

"  Dem.  39,  2,  13-14;  (40,  8-9). 

1JDem.  39,  2;  (40,9). 


SYCOPHANCY  IX  ATHENS  61 

Promachus.13  This  club  was  composed  of  men  who  made  a  business 
of  bringing  all  manner  of  suits  from  which  they  thought  they  could 
derive  some  gain.  It  so  happens  that  all  the  definite  information  that 
is  known  of  their  activity  centers  about  the  litigation  in  which  Boeotus 
was  interested.  This  will  be  discussed  in  some  detail  to  show  what 
type  of  work  an  apparently  typical  club  of  professional  Litigants  did. 
Boeotus  was  one  of  the  sons  of  Mantias  and  his  concubine  Plangon.14 
When  he  came  of  age  he  began  proceedings  against  his  father  with  a 
view  to  establishing  his  right  to  Athenian  citizenship.  To  gain  his 
point  he  availed  himself  of  the  services  of  the  club  of  Menicles  and 
Mnesicles.  It  is  not  certain  whether  he  joined  the  club  at  that 
time  or  whether  he  was  already  a  member.  It  seems  fairly  clear  that 
the  suit  was  suggested  by  the  club  members.1'  Mantias  dreaded 
the  trial.  He  had  reason  to  fear  that  some  of  his  political  enemies 
would  assist  Boeotus.  Menecles  realized  that  it  was  possible  to 
take  advantage  of  the  reluctance  of  Mantias  by  proposing  a  settle- 
ment out  of  court.  With  the  assistance  of  Plangon  he  accordingly 
contrived  a  scheme  to  which  Mantias  blindly  consented.  Plangon 
offered  to  induce  her  brothers  to  adopt  Boeotus  and  his  younger 
brother.  She  further  agreed  that  if  Mantias  would  challenge  her 
before  the  arbitrator  to  swear  that  the  young  men  were  his  sons,  she 
would  decline  the  challenge.  When  they  came  before  the  arbitrator 
and  Mantias  challenged  her  she  broke  the  solemn  oath  that  she  had 
taken  when  she  made  her  promise  to  him  and  swore  that  the  boys 
were  his  sons.  This  left  no  course  open  to  Mantias  but  to  ac- 
knowledge them  as  his  sons  and  allow  them  to  be  admitted  to  the 
rights  of  citizenship.  Some  time  after  this  Boeotus  succeeded  in 
getting  the  townsmen  of  Thoricus  to  register  him  under  the  name  of 
Mantitheus.16  He  was  dissatisfied  with  the  name  his  father  had 
given  him.  Mantitheus  was  his  paternal  grandfather's  name  and 
had  already  been  given  by  Mantias  to  his  eldest  son  by  his  wife,  the 
daughter  of  Polyaratus.  Boeotus  claimed  the  right  to  the  name  on 
the  ground  that  he  was  the  elder  of  the  two. 

13  Ibid.  (40,  28,  59-60).  Cf.  Calhoun  28  and  80  w.  notes.  Calhoun  does  no! 
mention  Promachus.  He  is  however  mentioned  in  (Dem.)  40,  28,  along  with 
Timocrates. 

"Dem.  39,  2  IT.;  (40,  9-11, passim.). 

'■  Vid.  Calhoun  pp.  80',  95  96. 

"(Dem.)  40,  11;  39,  4-5,  38-39. 


62  SYCOPHANCY  tH    \iiii 

Uter  the  death  of  Mantias  the  inheritance  wa  -  divided  Ix-tween 
tin-  two  seta  oi  children,  and  Mantitheus  claimed  a  talent  as  the 
marriage  portion  of  hi-  mother."    Boeotus  entered  a  i  'aim 

for  the  same  amount,  as  the  dowry  of  Plangon.  The  matter  went 
before  an  arbitrator  for  settlement.  The  trial  of  the  case  was  post- 
poned  so  long,  owing  to  delays  introduced  by  Boeotus,  that  the  arbi- 
tral <>r  died  before  any  decision  was  reached.  Boeotus  commenced 
action  again  ami  Mantitheus  responded  with  a  counter  claim.  These 
two  suits  were  arbitrated  also.  In  both  Boeotus  lost;  in  the  one  in 
which  he  was  plaintiff  he  losl  by  the  arbitrato  ion.     He  did 

not  appeal  the  case  because  he  knew  that  his  chances  of  winning 
were  very  slight.  In  the  one  in  which  he  was  defendant  he  lost  by 
default.  The  method  that  he  employed  in  setting  this  decision  aside 
is  a  striking  example  of  legal  quibbling.  He  insisted  that  Mantitheus 
had  not  received  a  decision  against  him  at  all.  A  decision  had  been 
given  against  Boeotus.     But  he  was  not  Boeotus  but  Mantitheus.18 

The  real  Mantitheus  followed  the  only  course  open  to  him. 
He  brought  suit  against  Boeotus  under  the  name  of  Mantitheus. 
Boeotus  replied  with  another  counter  suit.  This  time  he  did  not 
claim  the  dowry  of  Plangon.19  The  arbitrator's  decision  appar- 
ently prevented  him  from  doing  that.  But  he  trumped  up  a  demand 
for  some  other  property,  in  order  to  discourage  Mantitheus  by  a 
counter  suit.  The  speech  "For  the  Dowry"  was  delivered  by  Man- 
titheus in  the  prosecution  of  this  case  against  Boeotus.20 

Boeotus'  assumption  of  the  name  Mantitheus  had  led  to  so  much 
inconvenience  for  the  original  Mantitheus  that  he  wis  forced  to 
bring  suit  against  Boeotus  in  the  effort  to  establish  by  court  decision 
the  sole  right  to  the  name.21  At  first  Boeotus  defended  the  action 
and  asked  for  delay.  When  delay  was  no  longer  possible  he  allowed 
an  award  to  be  given  against  him  for  non-appearance.  He  then  got  a 
ruling  to  set  aside  this  award.22 

Another  suit  was  trumped  up  against  Mantitheus  in  the  course  of 
his  long  litigation  with  Boeotus.     The  latter  managed  to  get  into  a 

17  Ibid.  40,  14  ff.  Cf.  intro.  in  Paley  and  Sandys  for  the  various  views  on 
all  the  litigation  that  was  carried  on  between  the  two;  Cf.  also  Kennedy's  intro. 

"Ibid.  40,  18.  >9  Ibid.  40,  3,  17,  18. 

20  Ibid.  40. 

:I  The  result  is  somewhat  doubtful.  There  are  reasons  for  believing  that 
Mantitheus  did  not  win  eventually.  He  nowhere  says  that  he  did.  Vid.  Paley 
and  Sandys  intro.  to  39,  p.   139. 

aDem.  39,  37 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  |  i ) 

quarrel  with  Mantitheus  and  so  aroused  him  that  they  came  to 
blows.  He  then  cut  his  own  scalp  and  summoned  Mantitheus  b< 
the  Areopagus  on  a  charge  of  felonious  wounding.  His  intention 
was  to  force  Mantitheus,  by  this  suit,  to  quit  Athens  and  drop  the 
case  that  he  was  prosecuting  against  him  at  that  time.  The  only 
thing  that  saved  Mantitheus  was  the  voluntary  testimony  of  a 
physician,  who  told  the  court  that  the  schemers  had  endeavored  to 
induce  him  to  make  an  incision  in  Boeotus'  scalp.  In  this  way  the 
plot  was  laid  bare.23 

Menecles  was  responsible  for  the  scheme  by  which  Mantias  was 
forced  to  acknowledge  Boeotus  as  his  son;  the  club  members  gave 
false  testimony  for  Boeotus  in  the  suit  for  the  dowry,  one  of  them 
with  regard  to  two  different  matters;24  the  trick  by  which  Manti- 
theus was  charged  with  felonious  wounding  originated  with  Mene- 
cles.23 There  is  every  reason  for  believing  that  to  a  great  extent  the 
numerous  evasions,  delays,  quibbles  and  counter  suits  that  Boeotus 
introduced  during  the  long  litigation  between  him  and  Mantitheus, 
originated  with  the  club.  In  fact  Menecles  is  accused  of  being 
"the  architect  of  all  these  plots. 

In  return  for  their  services  as  witnesses  the  club  members  received 
like  assistance  from  Boeotus.25  He  regularly  aided  his  associates 
by  perjured  testimony.  This  was  regarded  as  his  contribution  to  the 
club,  like  the  money  contributions  made  by  members  of  an  eranus. 

They  may  have  received  a  financial  benefit  also.  It  i;  hardly 
likely  that  they  would  have  undertaken  so   much  "is  work 

without  the  prospects  of  a  share  in  the  proceeds  from  the  -aits  when 
Boeotus  was  successful.26 

Another  combination  of  sycophants  that  seems  to  have  been  of 
considerable  importance  was  that  of  Melas,  the  Egyptian."  Infor- 
mation about  this  club  is  rather  scanty  but  sheds  some  light  on  the 
methods  of  these  organizations. 

Dicaeogenes,  who  had  inherited  one-third  of  the  estate  oi  his 
adoptive  father,  was  persuaded  by  Melas,  to  sue  for  the  entire 
property.     He  was  in  the  habit  of  following  the  advice  of  Melas  in 

23  (Dem.)  40,  32-33.     Vid.  p.  47  above  for  discussion  of  tin-  relatively  large 
number  of  false  accusations  of  this  nature. 
-*  Ibid.  40,  28,  58-59. 
56  Dem.  39,  18;  cf.  (40,  28,  58-59.). 

28  Cf.  the  plan  for  assistance  to  be  given  Dicaeogenes  by  the  Gu 
27  Isaeus  5,  7-9,  40. 


M  SYCOPH  w  v  r;   Min 

other  mattei  \    a  bu  ine     venture,  the  member   of  the  club 

of  Mela  i  advanced  money  to  Dicaeogene  ,  either  for  bis  own  n^c  or 
for  the  pro  ecution  of  the  case.  The  understanding  was  thai  they 
should  shaii'  the  proceeds  if  he  established  bis  claim.  In  addition 
to  the  financial  assistance,  the  club  members  furnished  him  with 
their  as  witnesses.28     They  were  in  the  habit  of  giving  false 

testimony  for  their  own  comrades  jusl  members  of  the  club 

of  Menecles  and  Mne  i  i  '■  bey  are  said  to  have  taken  advantage 
of  the  city's  difficulties  to  gain  other  peoples'  prop 

No  doubt  the  services  of  members  of  these  clubs  were  at  the 
disposal  of  anyone  willing  to  pay  for  them.  It  is  not  improbable 
that  Melas  and  Menecles  made  a  business  of  supplying  such  pro- 
fessional witnesses  from  their  clubs 

The  professional  sycophant  Theocrines  belonged  to  a  club  that 
was  without  doubt  composed  of  others  of  that  profession.  The 
members  were  said  to  follow  the  same  occupations  and  share  the  gains.30 
In  the  case  of  Epichares  vs.  Theocrines  they  had  dissuaded  the  advo- 
cates that  Epichares  had  expected  to  assist  him  in  his  prosecution  of 
Theocrines  so  that  he  found  himself  absolutely  unaided  in  the  suit. 
They  had  also  attempted  by  threats  and  persuasion  (bribery)  to 
dissuade  witnesses  from  testifying.  Members  of  the  club  were 
expected  to  appear  as  advocates  for  their  associate  Theocrines.31 
It  would  be  even  easier  to  render  such  service  than  to  act  as  witnesses 
and  no  doubt  the  associates  frequently  helped  each  other  in  this  way. 
Professional  advocates  as  well  as  professional  witnesses  could  there- 
fore undoubtedly  be  obtained  from  the  clubs  of  sycophants.82 

"Ibid.  7,  40.     For  the  thought  cf.  Isoc.  IS,  241. 

29  Cf.  Calhoun  p.  80-81. 

80  (Dem.)  58,  39-40.  De  Vos  is  not  familiar  with  the  best  known  clubs  of 
Sycophants  but  he  does  devote  some  space  to  this  one  in  his  dissertation,  in  the 
chap,  on  "  Consociationes."  p.  49. 

31  Ibid.  4,  7,  42.  It  is  said  that  Demosthenes  was  one  of  those  who  had 
withdrawn  his  promised  assistance,  because  he  saw  that  the  prosecution  had  been 
begun  and  thai  in  this  way  he  was  relieved  from  the  attacks  of  Theocrines.  The 
latter  had  apparently  been  harrassing  Demosthenes  with  threats  of  prosecution. 
The  accusation  that  Demosthenes  had  left  Epichares  unaided  may  be  true. 
Cf.  Calhoun  p.  53. 

:2  For  fuller  discussion  vid.  section  on  "Sycophant  as  Agent  p.  53."  Cf.  also 
Calhoun  85-87.  It  may  be  that  the  club  to  which  Pantaenetus  belonged  was  a 
Club  of  Sycophants.  Their  methods  correspond  to  the  methods  of  these  organi- 
zations and  they  are  referred  to  as  kpyaar^piov  tQ>v  (tvv&ttutuv  (Dem.  37,  39). 
The  language  used  implies  that  they  were  assisting  him  as  advocates  and 
witnesses.     (Dem.  37,  48). 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  65 

The  language  of  the  orators  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the  existence  of 
professional  jury  bribers.  The  best  known  examples  areXenotimus 
and  Nicostratus.33  The  former  is  also  described  in  no  uncertain 
terms  as  a  fit  tool  for  all  sorts  of  underhanded  dealing-.  Nicostratus 
was  also  a  professional  briber  of  ecclesiasts.  In  the  bribing  of  jurors 
or  eccleisasts  it  is  evident  that  one  or  two  men  would  be  unable  to 
do  effective  work.  The  task  required  organization,  and  it  is  fair  to 
assume  that  such  men  as  Xenotimus  and  Nicostratus  belonged  to 
combinations  that  were  willing  to  sell  their  services  as  bribers.  These 
organizations  may  very  well  have  engaged  in  other  lines  of  sycopha 
also. 

There  was  another  club  the  members  of  which  could  be  hired  to 
act  as  agents.  The  language  employed  in  describing  the  combina- 
tion, epyaar-qpiov  {j.ox6vpu>v  avdpcoiroov  avvecrTrjKOTWP,  suggests  that  this 
work  was  usually  of  questionable  character.31  This  particular  or- 
ganization was  apparently  extremely  well  known  in  Athens.  Its 
members  hung  around  the  Peiraeus  looking  for  employment.  They 
were  familiar  with  the  business  of  the  city  and  especially  with  the 
foreign  trade  carried  on  in  the  Peiraeus.  The  only  member  of  this 
combination  whose  name  is  known  is  Aristophon.  He  had  achieved 
notoriety  in  the  management  of  the  case  of  certain  Miccalion.  He 
was  later  employed  by  Demon,  the  uncle  of  Demosthenes,  and  his 
business  partner,  to  represent  their  interests  in  a  difficulty  that  had 
arisen  about  a  ship  that  was  carrying  a  cargo  on  which  they  had 
loaned  money.  The  vessel  was  on  its  way  back  to  Athens  from  Sicily. 
After  barely  escaping  shipwreck  due  to  the  rascality  of  Zenothemis 
the  supercargo,  and  Hegestratus  the  shipowner,  it  arrived  at  last  in 
the  harbor  of  Cephallenia.35  There  Zenothemis  tried  to  induce 
the  authorities  to  send  the  vessel  to  Massilia  on  the  ground  that  he 
came  from  there  and  the  cargo  belonged  to  him  and  should  go  there. 
It  was  at  this  juncture  that  Demon  and  his  partner  in  some  way 

33Vid.   Section  on  "Sycophant  as  Agent"  pp.  54-55.     [soc.  IS.  11-12; 
1,  86.     Cf.  Calhoun  75  ff.;  118. 

34  Dem.  32,  10-11.  Calhoun  refers  to  this  combination  as  an 
tion  of  grain  dealers  and  traders  in  the  Peiraeus,  who  took  part  in  litigation  <>n 
occasion."  (P.  95)  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  they  were  merchants. 
Their  familiarity  with  the  business  can  be  otherwise  explained.  Merchants 
and  other  business  men  who  invested  their  money  in  "bottomry  loans"  would 
always  need  agents.  Such  could  be  supplied  from  men  who  studied  the  condi- 
tions in  the  sea  trade,  and  who  were  in  no  sense  merchants  01  trad 

36  Dem.  32,  4  ff. 


66  BYCOPH  ATHENS 

Learned  of  the  danger  to  their  investment.  They  hired  Aristophon 
to  go  to  Cephallenia  and  see  that  the  v<  i  Athens. 

He  u.i  mcc<  3ful.  Bui  when  the  vessel  reached  At  Inn-  it  wa-  found 
thai  he  had  sold  himself  to  the  other  side.  For,  ijpported  by  Aris- 
tophon, Zenothemis  laid  claim  to  the  grain  thai  the  ve  sel  brought, 
saying  thai   he  had  Loaned  money  on  it   to  th<  Hegestratus. 

It  seems  thai  Aristophon,  ever  ali>  e  to  t  he  i  ham  es  of  making  money 
by  his  tricks,  had  discovered  the  difficulty  in  which  Zenothemis 
found  himself  when  the  ship  wras  sent  back  to  Athens,  and  suggested 
to  him  the  course  of  action  that  was  followed.  It  is  doubtful  if 
Zenothemis,  who  was  guilty  of  trying  to  sink  the  vessel,  would  have 
gone  to  Athens  if  he  had  not  attached  to  himself  this  sycophant. 
The  latter  saw  a  chance  of  making  a  second  gain  out  of  the  matter. 
He  had  certainly  been  paid  before  he  left  Athens  to  act  as  Demon's 
representative.  He  is  said  to  be  the  manager  of  the  whole  scheme 
that  Zenothemis  put  into  operation  when  he  arrived  in  Athens.36 
As  Zenothemis  was  a  foreigner37  he  would  probably  need  assistance 
at  every  turn,  and  the  aid  that  Aristophon  was  able  to  render  was 
very  essential.  Demon  and  Protus,  the  man  who  had  borrowed  the 
money  with  which  the  cargo  had  been  bought  in  Sicily,  were  forced 
to  eject  Zenothemis  from  possession  of  the  grain.38  He  then  brought 
suit  against  each  of  them  separately.  Aristophon  and  Zenothemis 
had  been  trying  all  the  time  to  come  to  terms  with  Protus.  He 
held  out  against  them  until  he  saw  that  the  drop  in  the  price  of 
grain  would  make  his  profits  small  even  if  he  won  in  the  suit  that 
Zenothemis  had  brought.38  Then  he  compromised  the  matter  and 
consented  to  let  the  judgment  be  given  against  him  by  default.  He 
must  have  been  paid  for  this  concession.  This  arrangement  was 
without  doubt  planned  by  the  sycophant  and  Zenothemis.  They 
saw  that  it  would  be  excellent  evidence  to  use  in  the  case  against 
Demon  if  they  could  point  to  the  failure  of  Protus  to  appear  and 
defend  himself  in  a  similar  case. 

Agoratus  and  Theocritus  who  worked  together  as  agents  for  the 
pro-Spartan  party  at  Athens  in  403  B.C.  may  have  belonged  to  a 
combination  like  this  one.  The  language  used  in  describing  their 
relationship  with  one  another  suggests  close  affiliation.39 

39  Ibid.  11,  24. 

"  Cf.  Dem.  32,  5,  8,  29. 

38  Ibid.  24-26. 

"  Lys.  13,  19  and  passim. 


SYCOPHANCY  !X  ATHENS  67 

Nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  such  combinations  of  syco- 
phants. There  was  a  natural  bond  of  sympathy  between  men  of 
this  type  who  made  it  their  business  to  prey  on  society.  The  super- 
ior advantages  gained  by  combination  would  soon  tend  to  make 
them  pool  their  interests.  The  resulting  organization  might  be  of 
more  or  less  permanent  nature.  The  clubs  of  Menecles,  and  of 
Melas  were  clearly  permanent  organizations."'  The  features  com- 
mon to  other  clubs  may  or  may  not  have  been  present.  I  hey 
would  of  course  have  no  political  tendencies.41  Some  of  the  social 
features  seem  to  have  been  common.     The  club  :les  and 

Mnesecles  held  revels  in  the  house  of  Boeotus1'-  and  that  to  which 
Theocrines  belonged  kept  feasts  and  sacrifices.43 

Temporary  cabals  were,  of  course,  equally  effective  for  the  prose- 
cution of  some  particular  case.  The  alliance  of  Callias,  Meletus, 
Agyrrhius,  Cephisius  and  Epichares  against  Andocides  is  the  best 
known.  Of  these,  Epichares,  at  least,  was  a  professional  sycophant. 
The  methods  of  this  combination  were  exactly  like  those  of  the  clubs 
that  have  been  discussed.  One  man,  Cephisius,  was  chosen  to  lodge 
the  endeixis;  the  others,  and  perhaps  Cephisius  too,  contributed 
money  to  assist  in  the  prosecution.  Callias  gave  1000  drachmae. 
In  addition  to  the  money  contributions  they  assisted  Cephisius  by 
acting  as  witnesses  and  advocates.44 

There  is  nothing  to  indicate  the  number  of  permanent  clubs  of 
sycophants  in  Athens.  "There  were  probably  few,  but  unusually 
effective,  since  their  services  were  at  the  disposal  of  any  on> 

It  was  natural  that  these  organizations  should  endeavor  to  cover 
up  their  methods  as  much  as  possible.  This  effort  is  indicated  in 
Epichares  vs.  Theocrines.  "I  fancy  however,  men  of  the  jury,  that 
you  are  quite  alive  to  the  nature  of  these  men's  excuses  and  their 
accusations  and  pretended  quarrels.  For  you  have  seen  them  often 
enough  in  the  courts  and  on  the  platform  professing  to  be  personal 
enemies,  and  then  in  private  following  the  same  occupations  and  shar- 

40  Cf.  Calhoun  p.  95  and  notes. 

41  Calhoun  |>.  23. 

42  (Dem.)  40,  57;  cf.  Calhoun  p.  25. 

43  (Dem.)  58,  40.      There  may  have  even  been  an  age  qualification.       Timor 
rates  is  mentioned  as  an  age-fellow  of  Boeotus.    (Dem.)  40,  59;  Calhoun,  p 

44  And.  1,  121. 

46  Calhoun  p.  96.    The   evidence  seems   insufficient    for  assuming    th.u   the 
group  mentioned  in  Lys.  24,  19  is  an  organization  of  sycophants,  a-;  Calhoun 
p.  96. 


68  BYCOPHANCV  IN  ATHENS 

ing  their  gains;  at  one  time  bespattering  each  other  with  the  foulest 
insult  and  abuse,  and  in  a  little  time  after  feasting  together  and  taking 
part    in   the  same  sacrifices."48 

The  Sycophant  Among  the  Allies1 

The  development  of  the  Athenian  Empire  increased  the  number 
of  opportunities  that  the  sycophant  had  for  his  activities.  He  was 
more  successful  among  the  allies  than  in  his  attacks  on  Athenian 
citizens.2 

One  of  the  methods  employed  by  Athens  in  the  government  of  the 
subject  states  was  to  require  the  allies  to  come  to  Athens  for  legal 
settlement  of  disputes.3  The  advantages  of  this  for  the  city  are  well, 
if  sarcastically,  described  by  the  author  of  the  Xenophontic  Politeia: 
The  state  received  considerable  income  from  the  harbor  dues  that  the 
allies  must  pay  on  their  ships  when  they  reached  the  Peiraeus; 
people  who  had  lodging  houses  to  rent  or  vehicles  or  slaves  for  hire 
reaped  a  rich  harvest;4  since  a  man  would  frequently  be  compelled  to 
stay  considerable  time  in  Athens  before  his  business  could  be  finished,6 
this  form  of  income  was  no  mean  thing;  it  was  moreover  an  easy  way 
of  governing;  the  demus  sat  at  home  and  managed  its  subjects 
without  the  necessity  of  leaving  the  city.  If  the  allies  had  been 
allowed  to  try  cases  at  home  only  official  representatives  of  Athens 
would  come  into  contact  with  the  subjects  and  they  alone  would 

«  (Dem.)  58,  39-40. 

1  De  Vos  40  ff .,  discusses  this  field  of  activity,  but  very  incompletely. 

:  "Even  inhabitants  of  towns  around  Athens  suffered  more  than  the  Athen- 
ians themselves,"  De  Vos  8. 

3  (Xen.)  Polity  of  the  Athenians.     I,  16. 

Athens  did  not  content  herself  with  the  legal  management  of  all  matters 
relating  to  the  Confederacy.  She  gradually  drew  away  from  the  subject  states 
the  jurisdiction  in  all  important  cases.  The  courts  in  these  allied  states  had 
jurisdiction  only  in  those  cases  which  affected  their  own  citizens.  They  could  not 
inflict  the  death  penalty,  exile  or  atimia.  Such  cases  had  to  be  brought  to 
Athens.  The  courts  of  the  individual  states  kept  only  matters  of  slight  impor- 
tance under  their  jurisdiction.  Minor  matters  could  not,  of  course,  be  brought 
to  Athens  for  settlement,  since  her  courts  were  too  busy.  Busolt,  Griechische 
Geschkhte,  III,  1,  230  ff. 

*  Ibid.  I,  16  ff.  Szanto  (Zum  Gcrichtrurscn  dcr  Atiischcn  Bundcsgenossen. 
Athcn.  Mitt.,  Vol.  XVI,  31  ff.)  is  more  optimistic  than  the  author  of  the  Polity, 
He  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  purpose  was  to  give  the  allies  an  opportunity  to 
enjoy  the  blessings  of  a  well  developed  legal  system. 

6  Ibid.  Ill,  1. 


SYCOPHANCY  IX  ATHENS  69 

receive  homage;  as  it  was  the  allies  flattered  the  ears  of  the  demus 
in  the  courts,  made  every  effort  to  show  the  people  obeisance  and 
were  really  their  slaves.6 

One  of  the  most  important  gains  that  the  system  brought  was 
the  fact  that  the  democracy  obtained  the  chance  to  lend  support  to 
kindred  governments  in  the  allied  states.  There  was  natural  sympathy 
between  the  oligarchs  in  the  city  and  among  the  allies.  A  -imilar 
sympathy  existed  between  the  supporters  of  democracy.7  So  long 
as  the  wealthy  and  oligarchic  were  influential  in  the  allied  si 
there  was  danger  of  anti-democratic  sentiment  if  not  open  revolt 
against  Athens.  The  courts  served  as  a  means  of  checking  those  who 
were  not  "of  the  demus."  In  somewhat  exaggerated  language  the 
writer  of  the  Politeia  states  that  in  the  courts  the  Athenians  "saved 
those  who  were  partisans  of  the  demus^and  destroyed  the  others."8 

This  attitude  could  not  fail  to  encourage  the  sycophant  to  extreme 
activity  in  persecuting  the  wealthy  and  non-democratic  of  the  allies. 
"One  might  think,"  says  the  writer  of  the  Politeia,"  that  it  is  an 
advantage  for  the  allies  to  be  wealthy  and  be  able  to  pay  large  sums 
to  Athens  in  the  form  of  tribute.  But  the  demus  does  not  think  so. 
It  prefers  that  the  Athenians  shall  individually  have  the  allies' 
possessions.  If  the  latter  have  only  what  they  need  for  their  existence 
and  their  business,  they  are  not  able  to  make  plots  against  Athens."9 
This  implies  that  the  individual  Athenians  were  encouraged  to 
extort  money  from  the  allies  in  any  way.  In  such  a  soil  the  syco- 
phant's business  would  be  especially  thriving.10 

Many  considerations  made  it  almost  inevitable  that  threats  of 
prosecution  against  the  subject  allies  would  result  in  the  paying 
of  hush-money;  the  inconvenience  entailed  by  a  journey  to  Athens 
and  the  expense  of  staying  there  until  the  case  was  finished  were 
great.  As  a  result  of  the  congestion  of  business  a  suit  might  be 
delayed  for  a  long  time.  In  fact  the  author  of  the  Politeia  state-  that 
men  sometimes  waited  a  year  in  Athens  to  get  a  matter  of  business 
settled.     This  period  might  be  shortened  by  bribing  the  officials  to 

'Ibid.  I,  17-18;  14-15. 

'Ibid.  I,  14-15. 

8  Ibid.  I,  16. 

•Ibid.  I,  15. 

10 1,  14.  Instead  of  ol  irXkovrti  ffvKo<pavTov<nt>,  Kalinka  (notes  ad  loc.)  reads 
01  71-Xewes.  If  this  is  right,  as  it  may  well  be,  it  implies  that  the  democratic  spirited 
members  of  the  allied  states  prosecuted  the  wealthier  and  oligarchic. 


70  BYCOFB  \'-'  J   I',    \iin.\s 

accelerate  the  introduction  of  the  case,  but  this  was  an  additional 
outlay."  At  the  trial  the  susceptibility  of  the  jurors  to  appeals  that 
painted  the  defendanl  as  anti-democratic  was  almost  insurmount- 
able. Added  to  thi>  there  would  most  often  be  the  inability  of  the 
foreigner  to  present  bis  ca  e  well  and  the  consequent  necessity  of 
hiring  assistance  in  the  form  of  LogOgrapherS  and  advocates. 

There  are  indications  also  that  the  treatment  of  a  foreigner  was  not 
always  fair.  Euxitheus  when  brought  to  Athens  for  trial  when 
accused  of  the  murder  of  Herodes,  was  not  summoned  before  a 
homicide  court  on  a  5utj  yovov  as  might  have  been  expected.  The 
prosecutors  used  the  summary  proceedings  that  were  employed 
regularly  against  thieves,  housebreakers,  kidnappers  or  criminals  of 
that  class.  Furthermore,  although  he  offered  the  "sureties  required 
by  law,  his  bail  was  refused;  he  was  imprisoned."12  Such  treatment 
was  of  course  extremely  distasteful  to  the  defendant. 

Under  such  circumstances  it  would  be  inevitable  that  in  the  large 
majority  of  cases  a  wealthy  citizen  from  an  allied  state  would  prefer 
to  settle  at  once  with  the  sycophant. 

A  good  example  of  the  activity  of  sycophants  in  attempting  to 
extort  money  from  men  who  would  easily  fall  into  disfavor  with  the 
Athenian  jurors  is  found  in  the  case  of  Euxitheus.  In  the  course 
of  his  defence  he  is  compelled  to  say  a  few  words  in  behalf  of  his 
father  who  had  apparently  been  maligned  by  the  prosecution.13 
He  and  his  father  were  natives  of  Mytilene.  The  latter  had  remained 
faithful  to  Athens  at  the  time  of  the  revolt  of  Lesbos.  He  had,  in  fact, 
been  included  in  the  number  of  Mytilenean  citizens  who  were  allowed 
the  liberty  of  living  on  their  own  land.  But  he  no  longer  resided  in 
Mytilene.  He  had  moved  to  Aenos  in  Thrace.  The  cause  of  this, 
his  son  assures  the  jury,  was  no  disloyalty  to  Athens  or  his  own  city. 
It  was  his  hatred  of  the  sycophants.14  The  meaning  of  this  is  clear. 
Euxitheus'  father  had  been  beset  by  sycophants  who  accused  him 
falsely  of  participation  in  the  revolt.  He  had  probably  paid  hush- 
money  at  first.  When  the  situation  became  unbearable  he  left 
Lesbos  and  went  to  Thrace,  which  seems  to  have  been  the  resort  of  a 
number  of  Athenians  also15  who  preferred  to  live  away  from  the  dan- 

11  Ibid.  Ill,  2  ff. 

11  Ant.  5,  16-17  ff. 

13  Ibid.  74  ff. 

M  Ibid.  78. 

u  Cf.  Section  on  "Prevalence  of  Sycophancy"  p.  23  ff. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  7  1 

ger  of  litigation.  There  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  this  is  a 
unique  case. 

This  field  of  the  sycophant's  activity  receives  its  share  of  satire 
in  the  plays  of  Aristophanes.  In  the  Birds,  Euelpides  and  Pisthe- 
taerus  are  represented  as  looking  for  an  ideal  city,  free  from  litigation 
and  sycophancy,  in  which  to  spend  the  rest  of  their  days.1'"'  The 
Hoopoe  tells  them  that  such  a  place  as  they  describe  may  be  found 
on  the  shores  of  the  Red  Sea.  "Not  for  me,"  says  Euelpides.  "I'll 
never  move  to  a  place  on  the  seashore  where  any  morning  an  Athenian 
galley  may  come  with  a  summoner  to  take  me  to  Athens." 

The  sycophant  who  appears  in  Nephelococcygia  styles  himself 
"«XrjT77p  ....  vrjaioiTLKos  nai  avucxpavT-qs ."  He  asks  to  be  equipped 
with  wings  so  that  he  may  increase  his  efficiency  in  summoning  the 
allies  to  Athens.  With  wings  he  could  fly  off  to  one  of  the  islands, 
issue  a  summons  to  Athens  to  one  of  the  allies,  fly  back  to  Athens 
and  have  the  case  tried  before  the  defendant  arrives.  The  latter 
would  lose  by  default  and  then  the  "winged"  sycophant  could  fly 
off  to  the  island  and  seize  his  goods  before  the  unfortunate  man 
returned.17  The  exaggeration  is  patent.  But  the  mere  reference 
to  this  sort  of  activity  shows  that  there  were  numerous  kXtittjpcs 
vrjaLUTLKoi.  Aristophanes  does  not  waste  his  wit  on  matters  of  slight 
consequence. 

The  extortion  of  money  from  men  in  the  allied  states  is  well 
described  by  Aristophanes  in  the  Peace.  "They  used  to  harass  the 
wealthy  of  our  allies,  attaching  to  each  the  imputation  that  he  followed 
Brasidas.  Then  you  Athenians  used  to  worry  the  accused  man  like 
little  dogs.  The  foreigners  seeing  the  blows  with  which  they  were 
beaten  stopped  up  with  gold  the  mouths  of  those  who  did  this  and 
made  them  rich."18 

The  Sausage  seller  in  the  Knights  is  assured  that  if  he  attacks 
Cleon  for  having  accepted  bribes  he  will  be  the  mightiest  of  the  Greeks 
and  rule  over  the  allies,  disturbing  and  shaking  (aduv)  them  and 
making  much  money.19 

The  extent  to  which  this  evil  grew  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the 
plundering  of  allies  by  sycophants  is  regarded  as  the  cause  of  their 
revolt.  "You  all  know  that  in  the  former  democracy,  many  of  those 
who  managed  the  city's  business  stole  public  money,  and  that  some 

18  147-8.  17  1422  ff. 

"  638  ff.  >•  838  ff. 


72  SYCOPHANCY   r.  Aim 

of  them  look  bribes  againsl  your  interests  and  thai  the  sycophants 
caused  the  allies  to  re>  olt."*0  So  [so<  rati  5  describes  the  causes  that 
led  t<»  the  loss  of  the  subjecl  stat<  i  B  outraging  the  allies,  and 
falsely  accusing  them  and  driving  the  best  "Mi  of  their  property,  the 
sycophants  succeeded  in  putting  them  in  such  a  state  of  mind  that 
they  revolted  from  us  and  gladly  a<  cepted  the  friendship  and  alliance 
offered  by  the  Lacedaemonians."21 

J0  Lys.  25,  19.  "  Isoc.  15,  .316-318. 


CHAPTER  III 
Typical  Athenian  Sycophants 

It  will  be  interesting  to  trace  the  careers  of  a  few  notorious 
Athenian  sycophants.  One  of  the  most  unscrupulous  was  Agoratus. 
No  act  that  offered  him  opportunity  for  financial  gain  was  too  mean 
for  him. 

His  public  career  began  in  411  B.C.  He  was  a  slave  who  bad 
gained  the  citizenship  by  pretending  to  have  had  a  hand  in  the 
assassination  of  Phrynichus.1  According  to  Lysias  he  had  no 
right  to  this  merit;  he  had  bribed  the  rhetor  in  order  to  get  his  name 
inscribed  on  the  stele  which  was  set  up  by  public  decree  to  honor 
those  who  had  been  connected  with  the  plot  to  remove  Phrynichus.2 
There  is  such  a  decree  in  existence.3  In  form  it  is  a  rider  to  another 
that  votes  honors  to  Thrasybulus  for  his  part  in  the  assassination  of 
Phrvnichus.  The  rider  provides,  in  part,  for  other  honors  to  the 
rest  of  the  conspirators.  Of  these  Agoratus  is  one.  Lysias  quotes 
another  decree  to  prove  that  he  is  right  in  his  charge  of  bribery.4 
It  would  seem  therefore  that  the  bribery  had  been  discovered  and 
another  decree  passed  to  cancel  the  honors  conferred  by  the  earlier 
one.5  Whatever  the  truth  about  the  matter  is,  it  is  certain  that 
Agoratus  had  succeeded  in  passing  as  a  citizen.  He  had  spent  the 
years  from  411-404  as  an  active  sycophant.  He  had  laid  "all  con- 
ceivable indictments"  8'ucai,  y penpal,  airoy penpal  f  had  been  convicted 
of  sycophancy  and  fined  10,000  drachmae.7 

A  man  who  claimed  citizenship  for  participation  in  the  blow  that 
broke  up  the  Four  Hundred,  might  reasonably  be  expected  to  be 
democratic  in  sympathy.  But  Agoratus  was  absolutely  unprincip 
The  claim  was  made  merely  as  a  means  of  gaining  the  citizenship. 
In  404,  the  Athenians  who  were  anxious  to  come  to  terms  with 
Sparta  and  establish  an  oligarchy,  regarded  him  as  a  lit  tool  for  their 
plans.  This  shows  how  prominent  he  had  become  in  rascality. 
The  use  they  made  of  him  is  interesting.     It  shows  how  an  unprin- 

lJebb.  Alt.  Or.  I   p.  269;  Lysias.   13,  64,   70  76. 
*Ibid.,  70-76.     The  rhetor  is  probably  Diodes.     Vki.  Hicks  and  Hi'! 
Historical  Inscriptions,  p.  150,  3. 

3  C.  I.  A.,  i,  59.     Hicks  and  Hill,  lor.  tit.  71. 

4  Lysias  13,  72. 

6  Vid.  Hicks  and  Hill,  loc.  tit.  for  full  discussion. 
8  Lys.  13,  65,  73. 

7  Ibid.  65. 


74  SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS 

ciplcd  man,  familiar  with  the  courts  and  legislative  bodies,  as  a 
sycophant  would  be,  could  be  employed  to  do  underhanded  deeds 
with  which  those  who  hired  him  were  unwilling  to  be  openly  identified. 

The  first  proposition  of  the  Spartans  in  regard  to  terms  of  peace 
were  intolerable  to  the  democrats  at  Athens.8  Theramenes  was 
despatched  to  Sparta  to  arrange  for  a  more  favorable  peace.  While 
he  was  gone  the  partisans  of  the  oligarchy  at  Athens  contrived  a  plot 
for  removing  certain  influential  democrats  who  opposed  the  accep- 
tance of  Sparta's  terms.  They  trumped  up  a  charge  against  Cleo- 
phon,  packed  the  court  with  anti-democratic  jurors  and  condemned 
him  to  death.9  The  terms  which  Theramenes  brought  back  proved 
still  more  intolerable  to  the  democratic  party.  The  oligarchs  saw 
that  they  must  remove  the  objectors  before  the  meeting  of  the 
ecclesia  that  should  pass  on  the  Peace.  To  do  this  they  could  go 
before  the  senate  and  give  information  about  those  who  were  creating 
opposition.  But  the  plot  would  then  have  been  too  clear.  So  they 
availed  themselves  of  the  services  of  Agoratus  and  his  friend  and 
boon  companion,  Theocritus.10 

Their  scheme  worked  in  the  following  way:  They  sent  Theocritus 
before  the  senate.11  He  told  that  body  that  he  knew  of  a  plot  to 
oppose  the  peace,  but  was  not  in  a  position  to  reveal  the  names  of 
those  in  the  conspiracy  since  he  was  a  member  of  the  same  club 
as  they.  He  did  however  accuse  Agoratus  of  being  one  of  the 
plotters  against  the  peace  and  intimated  that  the  senate  would 
succeed  in  getting  the  names  of  the  others  from  him.  The  senate 
had  already  been  corrupted  by  the  efforts  of  the  oligarchs.  It  was 
really  a  party  to  their  scheme.  Behind  closed  doors  it  passed  a 
decree  for  the  arrest  of  Agoratus.  A  committee  of  the  senate  went 
to  the  Peiraeus  and  attempted  his  arrest.  It  had  already  been 
planned  that  he  should  pretend  that  he  was  one  of  the  anti-peace 
party.  In  this  way  his  information  would  seem  to  be  forced  from  him 
and  the  oligarchs  would  not  be  suspected.12 

Accordingly  when  the  committee  arrived  in  the  Peiraeus,  he 
feigned  alarm  and  took  sanctuary  at  the  altar  in  Munychia.  Some 
of  the  democrats  who  did  not  know  of  the  plot  of  the  oligarchs  and 

8  Ibid.  5-8. 

9  Ibid.  8-12. 

10  Ibid.  18ff.;32. 
"Ibid.  21. 

12  Ibid.  18-22. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  75 

thought  that  Agoratus  was  suffering  for  being  one  "of  the  people" 
went  bail  for  him.  The  senators  took  their  names  and  went  back  to 
the  city.  The  bondsmen  then  tried  to  induce  Agoratus  to  leave 
Athens:  boats  were  ready;  they  would  all  go  away  until  the  matter 
settled  down.  He  steadily  refused.  The  plan  of  the  oligarchs 
would  of  course  be  spoiled  if  he  did  not  stay  and  inform.  He  insisted 
on  appearing  before  the  senate.13  When  he  was  admitted  he  pre- 
tended to  turn  state's  evidence  and  gave  in  the  names  of  his  bondsmen, 
the  generals  and  the  taxiarchs,  as  prominent  democrats  who  were 
opposing  the  peace.14  Those  whose  names  he  gave  in  were  imprisoned. 
All  effective  opposition  to  the  oligarchy  was  removed.  Soon  Lysan- 
der  arrived  in  the  Peiraeus  and  Sparta's  terms  were  accepted  and 
the  oligarchy  was  established.15  Those  against  whom  Agoratus  had 
informed  were  put  to  death.  He  however  was  tried  by  the  Thirty 
and  released  as  a  friend  of  the  government.16 

It  may  be  that  he  was  exiled,  because  he  joined  the  democratic 
party  at  Phyle  and  returned  to  Athens  with  them.17  Sometime  after 
the  "return"  he  was  accused  of  murder  by  Dionysius,  the  cousin 
and  brother-in-law  of  Dionysodorus,  who  was  one  of  the  demo- 
crats put  to  death  by  the  Thirty  as  a  result  of  the  information  of 
Agoratus.  Our  information  in  regard  to  his  career  is  found  in  the 
speech  of  Dionysius. 

13  Ibid.  29. 
» Ibid.  30. 
15  Ibid.  34. 
» Ibid.  38. 

"  Ibid.  77. 

Callimachus 

Callimachus  is  a  good  example  of  the  extremely  litigious  persons 
that  extorted  money  from  Athenian  citizens  by  accusing,  or  threaten- 
ing to  accuse,  them  of  acts  that  had  been  committed  before  the 
restoration  of  the  democracy  in  403.  Such  prosecutions  were  theo- 
retically prohibited  by  the  Amnesty.1  But  even  so  the  Athenians 
found  themselves  continually  worried  by  sycophants  who  made  it 
their  business  to  accuse  them  of  some  participation  in  the  oligarchy 
or  especially  in  the  acts  of  the  Thirty.  The  dread  of  appearing  before 
a  popular  court  on  such  charges  made  blackmail  exceedingly  SUO 
ful.     The  extent  to  which  such  threats  of  prosecution   were  carried 

1  Isoc.  18,  1-2. 


76  SYCOPH  >    '   .   r.    \llli.NS 

is  seen  from  the  fact  thai  a    pecialprovi  i"r  igurated  to  meet 

them.  <>ii  the  motion  of  Archinus  a  law  was  passed  allowing  the 
|)ci  on  againsl    whom  an  action  was  broughl   in   violation  of  the 

Amnesty,    tO    make    a    Special     plea     (napaypacfrri).      This    Trapaypa<t>rj 

was  a  plea  that  the  action  was  not  maintainable  according  to  the 
Vmn<    '  rhe    peech  vs.  Callimachus  was  delivered  in  support  of 

su<h  a  plea.  The  speaker  (unknown )  had  been  maliciously  prosecuted 
by  Callimachus  and  availed  himself  of  the  comparatively  new 
privilege.  This  speech  is  the  source  of  our  information  in  regard 
to  this  sycophant.8 

He  had  been  a  turn-coat  in  the  time  of  the  Peloponnesian  War. 
To  save  his  property  he  ran  off  from  Athens  and  stayed  away  ten 
years.  When  the  Thirty  came  into  power  he  returned,  thinking 
that  he  could,  find  favor  with  them  and  help  himself  financially. 
He  remained  an  oligarch  until  the  day  when  the  Peiraeus  party  was 
ready  to  attack  the  walls.  Then  he  joined  the  exiled  democrats. 
When  the  Spartans  blockaded  the  Peiraeus,  he  fled  to  Boeotia,  so 
as  not  to  be  found  with  the  exiles  if  they  were  defeated.4  In  the 
period  following  the  Thirty,  when  the  "Ten"  were  in  control,  he  was 
in  Athens.  It  was  then  that  an  incident  occurred  that  provided  him 
with  the  basis  for  several  vexatious  attacks.5 

One  day  the  speaker  (in  the  irapaypaiprj)  and  his  friend  Patrocles, 
who  was  King  Archon  at  the  time,  were  out  walking  and  happened 
to  meet  Callimachus.  Patrocles  and  he  were  enemies.  The  former 
noticed  that  Callimachus  was  carrying  some  money.  He  stopped 
him  and  accused  him  of  having  in  his  possession  money  liable  to  con- 
fiscation. A  dispute  arose.  Patrocles  insisted  that  the  money  had 
belonged  to  Pamphilus  who  had  left  Athens  and  joined  the  Peiraeus 
party.  In "  the  course  of  the  discussion  many  people  rushed  up. 
Among  them  happened  to  be  Rhinon,  one  of  the  Ten.  Patrocles 
immediately  accused  Callimachus  to  him,  of  being  in  possession  of 
state  money.  The  matter  was  taken  before  the  Ten  and  the  BoulS 
and  it  was  decided  that  the  money  was  the  property  of  the  state. 
Callimachus  was  compelled  to  surrender  possession.6 

1  IbidTS.    Vid.  Grote  Hist,  of  Greece,  VIII.  299. 

» Isoc.  18.     Vid.  Jebb  Alt.  Or.  II,  235  for  question  of  date. 

•  Ibid.  48-49. 
1  Ibid.  5  ff. 

•  The  mere  fact  that  the  money  belonged  to  a  democrat  was  sufficient  to  make 
them  decide  thus. 


SYCOPHANCY  IX  ATHENS  77 

When  the  democracy  was  restored  Callimachus  very  naturally 
made  capital  of  this  matter.7  If  the  money  was  really  his  o>vn  it 
was  easy  to  arouse  a  democratic  jury  by  representing  himself  as 
unjustly  used.  If  it  belonged  to  Pamphilus,  who  was  identified  with 
the  exiles,   the  same  course  of  reasoning  !  I 

dwell    on    the   grasping   nature   of   the  money-loving  o  In 

either  case  he  could  make  his  arguments  convincing  by   representing 
Patrocles  and  all  concerned  as  tools  of  the  oligarchs. 

He  first  brought  action  against  Patrocles  and  succeeded  in 
extorting  ten  minae  from  him.7  He  next  involved  Lysimachus  in  the 
affair  and  secured  two  hundred  drachmae  from  him.      I  tker 

was  the  third  to  be  threatened  with  prosecution.     Callimachus  I 
be  understood  that  he  intended  to  charge  him  with  responsibility  for 
the  whole  trouble.     It  was  apparently  his  method  to  represent  each 
of  the  men  whom  he  accused  as  the  special  tool  of  the  Ten. 

The  scheme  that  he  employed  in  attempting  to  force  the  speaker 
into  a  settlement  is  interesting.8  It  was  no  doubt  the  method  he  had 
employed  successfully  in  the  other  suits,  and  according  to  the  speaker 
was  common  with  sycophants.  He  went  around  among  the  crowds 
and  in  the  favorite  lounging  places  and  talked  over  his  troubles.  He 
dwelt  in  great  detail  on  his  mistreatment  at  the  hands  of  the  speaker. 
Then  some  of  Callimachus  "friends"  came  to  the  prospective  defendant 
and  urgently  advised  him  to  settle  with  Callimachus  for  a  sum  and 
not  run  the  risk  of  a  trial.  It  was  better,  they  assured  him,  to  pay  a 
little,  than  to  lose  the  whole  sum  by  a  judgment.  To  influence  him 
they  reminded  him  of  the  many  mishaps  that  came  in  the  courts. 
Even  with  great  confidence  in  the  case  it  was  not  safe  to  take  the 
chances  of  the  trial.  Although  the  speaker  does  not  say  so,  he  must 
have  been  reminded  also  of  the  success  that  Callimachus  had  had  in 
the  other  cases.  At  last  the  speaker  was  persuaded.  He  paid 
Callimachus  two  hundred  drachmae.  To  insure  safety  from  future 
attacks  he  insisted  that  there  be  a  witness  to  the  transaction.'  They 
accordingly  submitted  their  agreement  to  an  arbitrator  ami  he 
"sanctioned  it  by  his  award."  Put  as  the  speaker  had  expected, 
Callimachus  did  not  let  the  matter  rest.  He  renewed  litigation  by 
bringing  suit  against  the  speaker  for  10. 000  drachmae.     At  the  trial 

1  Ibid.  8  IT.    Since  Oh-  suits  were  private  (&Uao  there  was  do  penalt)   for  with- 
drawing the  charge  after  making  a  settlement. 
?  Ibid.  9  ff. 
9  This  was  the  regular  method  of  avoidinj  >ns. 


78  SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS 

the  speaker  produced  ;i  witness  to  prove  that  the  case  was  not  main- 
tainable, since  the  matter  had  alread)  been  settled.  The  natural 
course  for  Callimachus  to  follow  was  to  accuse  this  witness  of  false 
testimony.  He  did  no1  do  this  He  knew  that  he  would  not  be 
able  to  prove  such  an  accusation  and  would  be  compelled  to  pay  the 
€7ra>/3e\ia.  He  therefore  "arranged"  it  with  the  magistrate  in  charge 
and  instead  of  bringing  a  hiK-q  yptvho^apTvpiwv  he  entered  the  same 
suit  again.10  For  this  bribing  of  the  official  he  used  the  assistance 
of  Xenotimus.  The  latter  was  an  expert  at  breaking  laws,  cor- 
rupting jurors,  tampering  with  magistrates  and  similar  deeds.  Under 
the  circumstances  the  speaker  let  the  case  come  to  trial  but  entered 
a  special  plea  that  it  was  covered  by  the  Amnesty  and  was  therefore 
not  maintainable. 

According  to  the  speaker  the  career  of  Callimachus  was  one 
succession  of  b'uai,  ypatpai,  false  testimony  and  active  participation 
in  suits  brought  by  others  of  his  type.11  One  incident  he  considers 
sufficient  to  show  what  sort  of  man  he  was.12  Callimachus  and  his 
brother-in-law  together  trumped  up  a  case  against  one  Cratinus. 
The  latter  and  the  brother-in-law  had  had  a  dispute  over  a  piece  of 
land.  A  fight  ensued.  The  scrimmage  became  rather  general. 
Afterwards  the  two  schemers  hid  one  of  their  slave  girls.  Later 
they  said  that  she  had  died  from  a  wound  in  the  head  dealt  her  by 
Cratinus,  and  brought  a  61*77  tpbvov  in  the  Palladium  against  him. 
He  discovered  their  scheme  but  let  them  go  on  with  their  case.  He 
knew  that  they  would  try  some  new  trick  if  he  exposed  them  too  soon. 
When  the  case  came  to  trial  the  brother-in-law  was  the  plaintiff  and 
Callimachus  with  thirteen  others  swore  that  the  girl  was  dead. 
Cratinus  excused  himself  from  the  court,  went  to  the  house  where 
the  girl  was  hidden,  broke  in,  took  her  to  the  court  and  showed  her 
alive  and  well  to  all  present.  The  plot  was  so  apparent  that  the 
prosecution  did  not  receive  a  single  vote  from  the  seven  hundred 
jurors  who  heard  the  case. 

Aristogiton 
All  the  references1  to  this  notorious  sycophant  are  in  substantial 
agreement  with  Demosthenes'  description  of  him  as  n'taos,  reXeiraToj 

10  Ibid.  11-12.    The  details  of  this  are  not  clear.     Cf.  MSL.  844,  n.  221. 

11  Ibid.  51-52.  The  language  implies  that  the  cases  in  which  he  was  usually  interest- 
ed were  trumped  up,  "ntd'  uv  awtarriKe." 

12  53.  54. 

1  Dem.  25;26;  Dinarchus  2;  Plut.  Phocion.  Chap.  X. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  79 

nal  irp&Tos  of  his  kind.2  Though  of  non-Athenian  parentage,3  like 
Agoratus,  he  had  in  some  way  acquired  the  citizenship.  This  he  used 
for  only  one  purpose,  sycophancy-4  He  went  about  like  a  viper  or  a 
scorpion  "with  his  sting  uplifted,  hastening  here  and  there,  looking 
for  some  one  whom  he  might  bring  into  a  scrape  or  fasten  some 
calumny  upon,  and  put  into  alarm,  in  order  to  extort  monev."^ 

He  is  a  typical  example  of  a  sycophant  who  had  acquired  a  stand- 
ing of  some  importance  in  the  state  by  his  oratory  and  his  activity 
in  the  courts  and  ecclesia.  This  influence  he  used  however  for 
nothing  but  base  purposes.  In  the  earlier  years  of  his  career  he  seems 
to  have  made  it  his  business  to  attack  public  men  especially.''  By 
this  pretended  interest  in  the  people's  welfare  he  had  won  the  title  of 
kvoju  rod  b-qixov.1  Like  others  of  the  type  he  represents,  he  appeared 
in  the  assemblies  where  public  men  expressed  their  opinions  and 
made  all  manner  of  audacious  charges  against  them.  It  seems  that 
he  had  an  orator's  power  of  winning  the  people  to  his  side.  His 
method  was  to  bawl  out  in  the  assemblies:  "I  am  your  only  well- 
wisher";  "All  these  are  conspirators";  "You  are  betrayed";  "  My  good 
will  is  the  only  thing  left  you."8 

Even  more  effective  than  this  railing  in  the  assemblies  against 
public  men,  was  his  prosecution  of  them  in  the  courts  or  his  threats 
of  prosecution.  It  is  very  probable  that  in  many  of  these  attacks  on 
prominent  politicians  he  was  acting  as  the  agent  of  their  political 
enemies.  This  was  true  in  his  attack  on  Demosthenes  at  any  rate. 
Hired  by  the  pro-Philip  party  he  had  brought  seven  indictments 
against  him,  and  twice  he  had  accused  him  at  the  euthynae.9 

He  was  not,  however,  a  safe  man  to  employ  as  agent.  He  would 
not  hesitate  to  settle  up  with  the  man  whom  he  was  hired  to  prosecute. 

s  Dem.  25,  8-9;  Dinarch.  2,  1  "He  is  the  worst  man  in  Athens,  no  rather  the 
worst  in  the  world."     Cf.  Plut.  Pkocion  Chap.  X,  746. 

3  Dem.  25,  65.  At  least  his  mother  was  not  an  Athenian;  she  was  Bold  into 
slavery  upon  conviction  of  undutifulness  to  her  patron.  Cf.  also  79  and  Dinarch. 
2.8,  15. 

4  His  activity  in  the  courts  and  ecclesia  shows  that  he  was  a  citi/.en. 

6  Dem.  25,  52  (Kennedy)  cf.  Plut.  Phoc.,  loc.  at. 

*  Dem.  25,  40-42  states  that  he  has  ceased  attacking  public  men,  who,  he  had 
found,   could  defend   themselves. 

7  Dem.  25,  40. 

•Dem.  25,  8-9,  64.     Cf.  Plut.  1'lwc,  loc.  cit.  where  he  -  one 

"who  inflamed"  the  people  to  battle  and  who  was  a  "greal  man  of  war"  in  the 
assembly. 

•Dem.  25,37. 


80  SYCOPB  \iill.\s 

This  was  apparently  a  scheme  for  getting  paid  twice  for  the  -ime 
matter.1" 

After  Chaeronea  he  indicted  Hyperides  for  illegal  meas 
The  decree  thai  Hyperides  had  moved  authorized  that  all  the 
franchised  should  be  restored  to  their  full  rights.  The  purpose  was 
to  enlist  as  many  as  possible  on  the  side  of  Athens.  An  attack 
on  such  a  measure  by  a  man  like  Aristogiton,  who  himself  had  often 
been  partially  disfranchised  because  of  failure  to  pay  debts  to  the 
state,  was  probably  initiated  by  political  opponents  of  Hyperides  and 
the  anti-Philip  party. 

Demosthenes  cites  some  instances  of  his  professional  success. 
He  accepted  a  bribe  to  drop  the  prosecution  of  an  eisangelia  that  he 
had  brought  against  a  certain  Hegemon  and  an  indictment  against 
the  orator  Demades.  Over  Democles  he  held  thceats  of  an  eisangelia 
until  he  made  a  settlement  with  him.  In  the  matter  of  "the  olive 
dealer  Agathon"  he  caused  a  great  deal  of  disturbance  in  the  assem- 
bly. Then  he  "received  something"  and  kept  quiet,  even  though 
he  was  present  at  the  man's  trial  and  acquittal.  He  seems  to  have 
had  as  a  partner  in  many  of  these  suits,  Philocrates,  the  Eleusinian. 
They  apparently  worked  together  and  shared  the  gains.12 

Once  he  had  been  convicted  on  the  charge  of  avKOipa.vTia<>.u  Twice 
he  was  convicted  of  illegal  measures  and  in  each  case  condemned  to 
pay  a  fine  of  five  talents,  as  large  a  sum  as  was  ever  entered  in  a 
graphe  paranomon.  The  first  fine  he  was  in  no  hurry  to  pay,  but 
kept  up  his  sycophancy  until  he  was  forced  to  make  the  payment. 
He  delayed  payment  of  the  other  until  it  was  doubled.  He  was 
also  indebted  to  the  state  1000  drachmae,  as  a  result  of  dropping 
the  suit  he  had  begun  against  Hegemon.14  This  debt  he  also  allowed 
to  run  longer  than  the  law  allowed  and  it  too  was  doubled.  To 
secure  the  payment  he  mortgaged  a  piece  of  land  to  the  state.  Shortly 
afterward  the  mortgage  was  transferred  to  his  brother  Eunomus. 
The  latter  agreed  to  pay  the  debt  by  ten  yearly  instalments.  Eu- 
nomus made  two  payments.  Aristogiton  then  regarded  himself  no 
longer  as  debtor,  on  the  ground  that  his  brother  had  been  accepted 
in  his  place.     He  proceeded  to  avail  himself  of  all  the  privileges  of  a 

10  Dem.  25,  46-7,  39. 

11  Dem.  26,  11. 
,:  Dem.  25,  47. 

13  Dem.  25,  19.     Lipsius  A.  R.  44S. 

uDem.  25,  19;  Dinarch.  2,  12;  Dem.  25,  68;  Hypothesis  1-2. 


SYCOPHANCY  IX  ATHENS  81 

citizen  with  the  full  franchise.  For  this  an  endeixis  was  laid  against 
him  by  Lycurgus15  assisted  by  Demosthenes.16  The  latter's  >peech 
on  this  occasion  is  one  of  the  chief  sources  of  information  about  the 
defendant. 

Demosthenes  expected  that  Aristogiton  would  follow  his  usual 
method  and  threaten  him  with  prosecution  for  some  overl  acl  against 
the  state,  in  order  to  arouse  the  sympathy  of  the  jurors  for  him 
and  their  animosity  against  Demosthenes.17  He  therefore  reminds 
the  jurors  that  during  the  last  two  years,  although  Aristogiton  had 
been  active  in  the  courts  and  ecclesia  and  had  seen  him  and  Lycur- 
gus all  that  time,  he  had  not  taken  occasion  to  make  any  accusations 
against  them.  Any  threat  then  in  the  present  trial  is  either  a  false 
one,  or  else  he  has  been  guilty  of  negligence  in  the  last  two  rears. 
"But  the  truth  is,"  says  Demosthenes,  ''that  Aristogiton  has  stopped 
attacking  public  men."  After  a  silence  of  five  years,  to  which  he 
had  been  condemned,  for  debt  to  the  state,  presumably,  he  had 
returned  to  his  usual  business.  But  he  then  attacked  only  the 
poorer  speakers  and  the  inexperienced  ones.18  He  had  learned  his 
lesson.  "But  he  has  tasted  of  the  flock  that  he  was  supposed  to  be 
guarding,"  says  Demosthenes  sarcastically,  "and  has  stopped  attack- 
ing the  wolves.  Dogs  that  have  tasted  mutton  should  be  chopped 
up."     He  had  lost  the  right  to  the  title  of  kvuv  rod  Stj/xoi'.19 

He  was  apparently  incorrigible.  After  the  endeixis  had  been 
brought  against  him  he  kept  up  his  bawling  and  slandering.  He 
attempted  to  extort  money  from  the  generals  by  threats  of  prosecu- 
tion.20 They  refused  to  give  him  any.  Then  he  tried  to  defame 
them  by  saying  that  as  far  as  he  was  concerned  they  would  not  la- 
elected  superintendents  of  outhouses  even.  All  this  abuse  could 
have  been  stopped  by  money,  if  they  had  seen  fit  to  bribe  him. 
He  did  succeed  in  extorting  some  money  from  certain  magistrates 
elected  by  lot.21  Lastly  he  had  tried  to  confuse  the  proceedings  by 
publishing  false  papers.20     The  trial  went  against  him  and  he 

15  Cf.  Din.  2,  13. 

18  Dem.  25,  14,  also  Hypothesis. 

17  Ibid.  25,  36  ff. 

18  Ibid.  38. 

19  Ibid.  40-42.  (Kennedy) 

20  Ibid.  25,  49-50. 

21  They  apparently  feared  the  Euthynae. 


82  SYCOPHANCY  EN  ATHENS 

convicted.  Even  then  he  forced  his  way  into  the  ecclesia  and  took 
his  seat  on  the  firs!  bench  of  the  prytanes.22 

According  to  Dinarchus  he  had  spent  more;  time  in  prison  than 
out  of  it.M  This  must  have  been  for  debt  to  the  state.  At  the  time 
of  his  first  imprisonment  he  committed  such  an  outrage  that  his 
fellow  prisoners  refused  to  associate  with  him  at  all.-'  lie  got  into 
conversation  with  a  newly  arrived  prisoner  and  in  the  course  of  it 
stole  his  pocket-book.  When  the  man  tried  to  get  it  back  a  fight 
ensued.  The  newcomer  was  fresh  and  strong,  and  Aristogiton 
somewhat  "dried  and  shrivelled  up"  because  of  his  long  sojourn  in 
the  prison.  Therefore  the  former  succeeded  in  getting  the  upper 
hand.  But  in  the  course  of  the  fight  Aristogiton  bit  off  the  man's 
nose. 

At  one  time  he  broke  prison.  He  was  sheltered  and  concealed 
for  several  days  by  his  mistress,  a  woman  by  the  name  of  Zobia. 
After  the  authorities  had  ceased  searching  for  him,  she  gave  him 
clothing  and  money  and  sent  him  off  to  Megara.  When  he  had 
returned  and  become  a  "great"  man  and  the  woman  was  in  want, 
he  maltreated  her.  She  complained  to  her  friends.  At  once  he 
took  her  off  to  sell  her  as  a  slave,  and  would  have  done  so  if  her  alien 
tax  had  not  been  paid.25 

Once  Phocion  was  called  to  the  prison  to  see  Aristogiton.  His 
friends  objected  to  his  going.  "Where  would  I  rather  see  Aristogi- 
ton, than  in  prison?"  asked  Phocion.26 

His  reputation  was  so  bad  that  when  he  was  drawn  by  lot  for  the 
office  of  eTn/jLt\r)Tr)s  of  the  Emporium,  the  officials  rejected  him  at  the 
dokimasia.27 

He  allowed  his  father  to  die  neglected  in  prison  and  would  not 
even  bury  him.  Against  those  who  did  bury  him  he  brought  a  suit, 
instead  of  paying  them  for  their  services.28  He  sold  his  sister  to  be 
taken  out  of  the  country  and  did  not  keep  his  hands  off  his  own 
mother.29 

22  Dinarchus  2,  13. 

23  Dinarchus  2,  2.     Cf.  Plut.  Phoc,  he.  tit.;  Dem.  25,  67. 

24  Dinarchus  2,  9;  Dem.  25,  60-61  ff. 

25  Dem.  25,  56-57. 

M  Plut.  Phoc,  loc.  cit. 

27  Dinarchus  2,  10. 

28  Dem.  25,  54,  65;  Dinarchus  2,  8. 

29  Dem.  25,  55. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  83 

His  liturgies  were  <pa<rus,  aTrcryarycu,  hSdj-Hs.*0 

Some  other  deeds  of  villany  are  mentioned,  but  the  references 
are  too  vague  to  offer  definite  information. 

The  last  act  of  treachery  was  the  one  for  which  he  was  prosecuted 
by  Dinarchus.  He  took  a  bribe  of  twenty  minae  from  the  Persian 
envoy,  Harpalus.  On  this  charge  he  was  condemned  by  the  court 
and  thrown  into  prison  and  died  there.31 

Theocrines 

Theocrines  like  Aristogiton  was  an  orator  of  some  ability  and  had 
attained  considerable  prominence  in  the  affairs  of  state.  Both  he 
and  Aristogiton  were  really  demagogues  who  used  their  influence  in 
extorting  money  from  men  of  prominence,  but  who  did  not  hesitate 
to  stoop  to  the  means  of  the  ordinary  sycophant  when  it  suited  their 
purpose.  The  case  of  Epichares  vs.  Theocrines  is  full  of  information 
about  the  career  of  the  latter.1  The  circumstances  that  Epichares 
uses  as  a  basis  of  the  first  charge  against  him,  prove  him  a  sycophant 
beyond  a  doubt.  These  circumstances  have  been  related  in  detail 
above.2  They  dealt  with  the  (pacts  that  Theocrines  had  entered 
against  Micion  and  had  failed  to  prosecute  when  the  latter  had  made 
a  settlement  with  him. 

Theocrines  seems  to  have  boasted  that  his  work  in  life  was  to 
bring  indictments  for  illegal  decrees.3  Like  Aristogiton  he  tried  to 
acquire  a  reputation  for  supporting  the  democracy  and  chose  this 
way  to  gain  it.  The  purely  mercenary  motive  that  underlay  these 
suits  is  seen  from  his  attitude  at  the  indictment  of  the  father  of 
Epichares  for  illegal  measures.4  He  pretended  to  be  much  concerned 
in  securing  justice  for  an  orphan.  But  the  case  would  have  never 
come  to  trial  if  the  defendant  had  paid  the  1000  drachmae  for  which 

s°  Ibid.  78. 

31  Dinarchus  2,  esp.  1  and  4. 

For  other  references  to  Aristogiton  Vid.  Schaefer  Dent.  u.  s.  Zeit.  Ill,  296  f.; 
314.  Hermog.  deform,  oral.  I,  296,  II,  363.  Suidas  s.  v.  BLi>s.  .1.  B.  III.  2, 
251.  Quintilian  XII,  10,  22.  "Quintilian  honors  him  entirely  too  much  when  he 
classes  him  with  Lycurgus  and  other  masters,"  Thalheim  in  Pauly-Wiss.  s.  v. 

•  (Dem.)  58,  5-13. 
2  pp.  34  ff . 

8  (Dem.)  58,  22-23,  34,  45. 

*  Ibid.  31  ff.     For  fuller  discussion  vid.  pp.  36  ff. 


84  SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS 

Thcocrincs  was  willing  to  settle  and  to  drop  proceedings.  No  direct 
financial  gains  came  to  him  from  the  conviction  that  he  secured  when 
the  case  was  tried.  But  he  used  it  as  a  means  of  extorting  200 
drachmae  from  Polyeuctus  whom  he  indicted  for  maltreatment  of  the 
same  orphan  whose  interest  he  pretended  was  the  cause  of  the 
previous  indictment. 

At  another  time  he  had  indicted  Demosthenes  for  illegal  measures 
and  had  failed  to  prosecute.5  Epichares  explains  the  reasons  for 
the  dropping  of  the  suit  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was  done.  Some 
one  asked  when  the  case  came  to  trial  that  it  be  postponed  and  gave 
as  the  reason  for  the  request  the  serious  illness  of  Demosthenes. 
Although  the  one  who  made  the  request  took  oath  that  his  statement 
about  Demosthenes  was  true,  Epichares  states  that  it  could  not  have 
been  so  because  Demosthenes  was  at  that  time  very  active  in  his 
attacks  on  Aeschines.  Theocrines  however  consented  to  the  request 
and  let  the  matter  drop,  and  never  renewed  the  case.  It  is  evident 
that  the  postponement  had  been  secured  by  previous  arrangement. 
From  the  reference  to  the  sum  of  money  that  Theocrines  had  named 
as  penalty,  it  is  to  be  inferred  that  there  had  been  a  money  considera- 
tion.6 

In  connection  with  another  indictment  of  the  same  kind  Theo- 
crines had  received  a  mina  and  a  half  imtp  rod  \f/r]tflcrpaTos  o  'AvTifxkSwv 
eypa\pe  rots   Tevediois.7 

Because  of  the  present  suit  brought  by  Epichares,  Theocrines 
had  been  forced  to  drop  an  indictment  that  he  had  brought  against 
Thucydides  and  Demosthenes.  Epichares  expects  that  he  will 
urge  that  the  suit  was  brought  for  that  purpose,  according  to  a  pre- 
arranged scheme  of  the  two  men  who  were  in  danger  of  conviction 
if  the  case  against  them  came  to  trial.8 

Other  incidents  in  the  life  of  Theocrines  stamp  him  as  absolutely 
unscrupulous.  His  brother  had  been  murdered  and  instead  of  prose- 
cuting the  guilty  ones,  Theocrines  accepted  a  bribe  from  them.9 
Before  they  paid  him  he  kept  threatening  to  accuse  Demochares  of 
the  crime.10 

After  his  brother's  death  he  succeeded  in  getting  himself  elected 
UpowoLos  illegally.11 

6  Ibid.  43. 

*  On  the  settlement  out  of  court  by  money  payment  vid.  pp.  S6-87. 

7  Ibid.  35. 

8  Ibid.  23,  36,  43.  9  Ibid.  28. 

10  Ibid.  29.  "  Ibid.  29-30. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS 

At  the  time  that  his  brother  was  one  of  the  Thesmothetae,  Theo- 
crines  acted  as  his  assessor.  His  actions  while  in  that  position  were 
responsible  for  the  suspension  of  the  whole  body  of  Thesmothae. 
They  were  reinstated  only  on  condition  that  Theocrines  be  no  longer 
used  as  their  adviser.12 

His  desire  for  public  activity  was  insatiable.  He  was  indebted 
to  the  state  treasury  2200  drachmae  on  three  separate  fines.  Still 
he  insisted  on  assuming  the  rights  of  an  eiriTinos.  It  is  very  probable 
that  the  reputation  that  he  had  acquired,  of  favoring  the  interests  of 
the  people,  made  the  attitude  of  the  state  more  lenient  toward  him 
and  that  therefore  no  one  had  cared  to  indict  him.13 

He  belonged  to  a  club  the  members  of  which  had  succeeded  in 
buying  off  the  advocates  and  witnesses  upon  whom  Epichares  had 
depended.  These  same  club-members  were  expected  to  appear  as 
advocates  for  Theocrines  and  had  apparently  helped  him  in  working 
out  a  clever  defence.  They  regularly  worked  together  and  shared 
the  gains  when  there  were  any.14 

"Ibid.  27.  "Ibid.  2,  5,  12,  14,  22. 

"  Ibid.  4,  7,  40  ff.     Cf.  above  64,  67. 


CHAPTER  IV 
Checks  on  Sycophancy1 

The  excessive  amount  of  groundless  litigation  that  grew  out  of 
the  provision  eijeiycu  rc3  Pov\o(iki>u>  ypaipeaOai  early  demanded  some 
check.  With  the  purpose  of  discouraging  "frivolous  and  vexatious" 
prosecutions,  general  laws  were  enacted,  which  affected  not  only 
sycophants  but  all  thoughtless  or  avaricious  prosecutors. 

Any  man  who  dropped  a  public  suit  after  he  had  started  pro- 
ceedings was  fined  1000  drachmae  and  denied  the  privilege  of  bringing 
a  similar  suit  again.2 

The  professional  sycophant  Theocrines  had  violated  this  law  by 
withdrawing  from  the  prosecution  of  a  <paais  that  he  had  entered 
against  Micion.  For  the  failure  to  pay  the  fine  that  he  had  thereby 
incurred  he  was  prosecuted  by  Epichares.  The  fine  of  1000  drachmae 
is  the  only  part  of  the  law  which  receives  attention  from  the  prosecu- 
tor Epichares.3  But  the  latter  may  be  especially  concerned  in  em- 
phasizing this,  since  he  is  endeavoring  throughout  the  whole  speech 
to  heap  up  the  number  of  fines  that  Theocrines  has  incurred. 

Euctemon,  the  sycophant  who  had  been  hired  by  Midias  to  bring 
a  false  charge  against  Demosthenes,  dropped  the  prosecution  of  it 
after  the  case  had  been  posted,  and  thereby  "disfranchised  himseif."4 
Apparently  the  full  penalty  of  the  law  had  been  applied  in  his  case. 

Although  this  law  worked  well  in  theory  its  practical  value  was 
not  very  great.  References  to  settlements  and  compromises  are 
frequent  in  the  orators.  Many  non-litigious  and  sincere  prosecutors 
as  well  as  sycophants,  were  willing  to  accept  money  by  way  of  settle- 
ment, even  after  the  case  had  been  begun.  It  seems  also  that  under 
some  circumstances,  with  the  "consent  of  the  proper  authorities",5 
a  prosecution  that  had  been  started  might  be  discontinued,  even  after 
the  anacrisis.  In  fact,  several  indications  point  to  a  general  disregard 
of  the  law  that  provided  punishment  of  the  man  who  dropped  a 
case.  Reasons  for  this  are  not  hard  to  find.  Enforcement  of  the 
law  would  be  difficult  to  secure.     On  whom  did  the  responsibility  of 

1  De  Vos  64  ff . 

*  (Dem.)  58,  6;  21,  103;  21,  47.  Cf.  Theophrastus  Fr.  8;  Lex.  Rhei.  Cant. 
677,  8. 

•  (Dem.)  58,  6  ff. 
♦Dem.  21,  103. 

1  Calhoun  58  n.  6. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  87 

securing  the  enforcement  rest?  It  is  hardly  likely  that  the  magis- 
trate under  whom  the  case  had  been  entered  was  expected  to  see 
that  the  prosecutor  who  dropped  the  suit  was  punished.6  The  man 
who  had  escaped  trial  by  paying  the  prosecutor,  would  never  turn 
against  the  one  with  whom  he  had  settled  and  accuse  him  of  vio- 
lating the  law.  Neither  would  his  friends  do  so.  It  is  probable  that 
the  enforcement  depended  on  the  "interest  of  individual  citizens"7 
in  particular  cases.  The  fact  that  Theocrines  was  liable  to  the 
penalty  of  this  law  was  undoubtedly  well  known  before  he 
brought  to  trial  by  Epichares.  But  he  had  been  exercising  full  rights 
of  citizenship  until  that  trial  and  had  not  paid  the  fine.  Unless 
some  one  who  was  unusually  interested  in  the  enforcement  of  the 
laws,  or  one  who  for  personal  or  political  reasons  wished  the  offender 
punished  cared  to  bring  action  to  enforce  the  penalty,  there  was 
no  special  inconvenience  entailed.  Epichares  happened  to  have  per- 
sonal reasons  for  desiring  to  see  the  penalty  applied  in  the  case  of 
Theocrines.  He  therefore  took  advantage  of  the  opportunity  that 
was  offered  anyone  and  prosecuted  him  for  failure  to  pay  the  fine  and 
for  exercising  full  rights  of  citizenship.8 

Evasions  of  the  law  were  also  possible.  Theocrines  is  accused  of 
having  discontinued  a  suit  against  Demosthenes  by  a  device  that  is 
said  to  have  been  common.  When  the  case  came  to  trial  some  one 
requested  that  it  be  postponed  on  the  ground  that  Demosthenes  was 
too  ill  to  attend.  Theocrines  consented  and  never  renewed  pro- 
ceedings. The  language  of  the  passage  makes  it  clear  that  the  scheme 
was  prearranged  and  that  Theocrines  had  been  paid  to  drop  the 
prosecution.9 

The  failure  of  a  prosecutor  in  a  public  suit  to  receive  one-fifth 
of  the  votes  cast  likewise  exposed  him  to  the  fine  of  1000  drachmae 
and    partial    disfranchisement.10     Aristogition,    the   notorious   syco- 
phant, had  not  succeeded  in  securing  the  requisite  number  of  \ 
in  one  of  his  many  prosecutions.11     He  was  accordingly  fined  and 

8  This  is  the  view  of  Lipsius,  A.  R.  844. 

7  Calhoun  58,  n.  6. 

8  Cf.  Calhoun  58  ff.  for  discussion  and  references. 

9  (Dem.)  58,  43. 

10  And.  4,  18;  Lys.  18,  14;  Dem.  21,  47;  22,  26-27;  23,  80;  2  \.  Plato 
Apol.  36  B. 

11  (Dem.)  26,  9  (Kennedy's  intro.);  The  hypothesis  (2)  states  that  it  was  the 
dropping  of  his  suit  against  Hegemon  that  brought  the  fine.  It  may  well  he  that 
he  was  fined  for  both 


88  SYCOPH am  V  l\  ATHENS 

partially  disfranchised.  He  disregarded  the  penalty  altogether  how- 
ever.  The  fine  was  doubled,  because  he  delayed  payment  too  long. 
He  insisted  on  exercising  all  the  rights  of  citizens.  For  this  an  indict- 
ment was  laid  against  him  by  Lycurgus  and  Demosthenes.  As  in 
the  case  of  the  other  law,  enforcement  depended  on  the  activity  of 
individuals.13 

Malicious  and  vexatious  dUac  were  checked  by  a  provision  similar 
to  this.  If  the  prosecutor  in  a  private  suit  failed  to  receive  one-fifth 
of  the  votes  cast  he  was  forced  to  pay  the  defendant  an  obol  for  every 
drachmae  of  the  amount  at  which  he  had  assessed  the  damages  in  his 
suit.13  This  eTTufieXLa  affected  fewer  professional  sycophants  than  the 
other  laws  mentioned.  Comparatively  few  of  them  would  be  able 
to  use  private  suits  in  extorting  money.  Circumstances  happened 
to  make  it  easy  for  Callimachus  and  some  others  to  ply  their  trade 
by  this  means.14 

Efforts  of  sycophants  and  other  litigious  persons  to  bring  suits  in 
violation  of  the  Amnesty  of  403  B.C.  caused  so  much  additional 
trouble  that  a  further  check  was  introduced  in  the  shape  of  the 
paragraphe.15  This  gave  the  person  who  found  himself  accused 
irapa  tovs  bpnovs  the  opportunity  of  pleading  that  the  case  was  not 
maintainable,  since  it  was  covered  by  the  Amnesty.  The  defendant 
thus  had  the  right  to  speak  first.  This  privilege  he  could  use  in 
calling  the  jurors'  attention  to  the  litigious  nature  of  the  prosecutor 
who  was  violating  the  Amnesty.  He  could  also  present  his  view  of 
the  case  proper,  for  it  was  expected  that  the  defendant  would  not  rest 
his  case  on  mere  technicalities  but  would  discuss  the  whole  matter.18 
The  jurors  were  naturally  unable  to  make  their  decision  without 

12  It  is  impossible  to  determine  whether  the  disfranchisement  (partial)  followed 
in  connection  with  every  -)pa<ff)  or  not.  The  language  is  sometimes  ambiguous; 
that  is,  it  implies  that  in  a  certain  case  the  fine  followed  but  not  the  atimia,  or 
else  that  there  was  disfranchisement  but  no  fine.  This  is  probably  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  speaker  in  each  case  considers  one  or  the  other  of  these  things  as 
more  important  for  his  purpose.  For  complete  discussion  Vid.  MSL  952;  D.  and 
S.  Did.  des  Antiq.  s.  v.  -ypa<rn;  Lipsius  A.  R.  307-308,  n.  26;  449;  Pollux,  VIII,  41. 

Some  grammarians  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  atimia  followed  only  if  a  man 
had  lost  three  public  suits,  MSL  953. 

11  For  the  question  as  to  what  5Uai  were  liable  to  iiro:fi(\ia  vid.  D.  and  S. 
Did.  des  Ant.  s.  v.;  MSL  949  ff.  Lipsius  A.  R.  937.  Some  of  them  are  Six* 
iiriTpoirTJs,  5Lkt]  XP">«>  8ikt)  Trapafiaatojs  ovvOtikGiv. 

w  Isoc.  18,  1-3. 

16  Isoc.  18,  1-3;  Aristotle,  Const.  Ath.  39,  6;  Xen.  Hell.  II,  3,  12. 

11  Lipsius  A.  R.  856. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  89 

taking  everything  that  they  had  heard  into  consideration.  Their 
vote  on  the  paragraphe  would  in  most  cases  be  equivalent  to  a  vote 
on  the  case  proper.  If  the  defendant  won  the  paragraphe  the  plain- 
tiff was  fined  just  as  he  would  have  been,  had  he  lost  the  original 
case;  e7raj/3e\ia  if  the  suit  was  a  8Ur),  1000  drachmae  if  it  was  a  ypa^rj.11 

The  leading  case  of  such  a  paragraphe  is  the  one  broughl  against 
Callimachus.  The  latter  had  been  very  active  in  extorting  money 
from  men  whom  he  could  involve  in  participation  in  an  incident  that 
occurred  just  before  the  restoration  of  the  democracy.  The  third 
man  from  whom  he  tried  to  secure  a  large  sum  let  the  matter  come  to 
trial  and  then  availed  himself  of  the  paragraphe. ls 

These  indirect  methods  did  not  succeed  in  stopping  the  evil  to 
any^considerable  extent.  There  were  therefore  means  provided  fox 
attacking  the  sycophant  directly  in  the  courts.  Three  of  these  are 
mentioned  by  Isocrates  in  the  ArUidosis.19  He  is  devoting  consider- 
able space  to  attacks  on  sycophancy  and  to  a  description  of  the 
seriousness  of  the  evil.  To  make  this  most  vivid  he  enumerates  the 
different  forms  of  procedure  used  against  them  and  the  several  tri- 
bunals before  which  they  could  he  tried.  This  he  does  by  contrasting 
provisions  against  adLK^fxara  witn  those  against  sycophancy.  "To 
meet  the  greatest  crimes,  they  (our  ancestors)  provided  a  trial  in  one  of 
the  dicasteries.  But  against  these  (sycophants)  they  instituted  ypa^al 
before  the  thesmothetae,  eiffayyeXLcu  before  the  Boule,  and  irpoJoXai 

"  The  speaker  in  the  case  vs.  Call imaclius  (3)    states    that   the  fine  was  *to>- 
/3eMa.   This  has  led  to  the  conjecture  that  the  paragraphe  was  int  uxai 

only.  (Lipsius  A.  R.  858).  The  explanation  may  very  well  he  as  follows: 
The  plea  was  intended  for  both  public  and  private  suits.  The  one  used  against 
Callimachus  is  used  in  a  private  suit.  For  this  reason  the  penalty  was  the 
iirw0e\La.  If  the  suit  was  a  public  one  the  line-  would  in  all  probability  be  1000 
drachmae.  This  seems  to  be  the  usual  fine  in  such  cases,  in  ord< 
useless  litigation.  As  is  usual  among  the  Greeks,  only  that  part  of  I 
quoted  which  concerns  the  case.     Vid.  D.  and  S.  Diet,  des  Antiq.  s.  v.  7rapa>.ia.->7 

The  later  use  of  the  paragraphe,  though  it  d  sveioped  out  of  the 
tioned  here,  did  not  in  all  probability  have  any  real  effect  0  .  ny. 

,8Isoc.  18..9H. 

19  Isoc.  15,  313-14.     The  language  of  [socrates  seems  to  indi< 
sidered  these  measures  against  sycophants  very  old.      They  can  hardly  go  back 
to  the  period  before  the  growth  of  the  courts  and  the  promin 
It  is  to  assume  too  much  political  foresight  in  the  "I 
before  Pericles,  to  imagine  thai    tb         ■         '■    the  abuse  that    ffou   1 
legislated  against  it.     The  babil  of  assigning  to  old  legislators  tb  «  the 

laws  that  happen  to  meet  with  the  speaker's  ipproval  ;-  nal  iral  and      >na 
among  the  orators. 


90  SYCOPHANCY  I  \  ATHENS 

before  the  people,  because  tiny  thought  that  those  who  practised  the 
business  exceeded  in  every  branch  of  villany." 

Of  the  three  measures  mentioned  by  Isocrates,  the  probole  re- 
ceives most  attention  from  other  ancient  authorities.  Aristotle's 
statement  is  the  fullest.  According  to  him,  in  the  sixth  prytany 
(Kvpia  tKKXrjaia)  at  the  same  time  at  which  a  vote  was  taken  as  to 
whether  there  should  be  an  ostracism  or  not,  there  was  offered  also 
the  opportunity  to  bring  in  irpofioXas  ovkovolvtwv.  Six  names  were 
allowed  to  be  entered,  three  citizens  and  three  metics.20 

Modern  scholars  are  in  substantial  agreement  in  regard  to  the 
occasions  which  justified  the  use  of  probole  against  sycophants.21 
Because    this   procedure   is   regularly    connected  with  offences  that 

20  Const,  of  Athens  43,  5. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  probole  was  merely  an  informal  preliminary 
criminal  information,  brought  before  the  ecclesia.  It  was  intended  as  a  test  of 
public  opinion  and  involved  no  punishment.  Gilbert  (303,  note)  is  of  the  opinion 
that  Aristotle  does  not  mean  that  ac  this  time  only  were  probolae  introduced, 
but  at  other  meetings  also.  The  special  point  is  that  it  happened  regularly  at  the 
Kvpia  (KKXrjaia.  The  reason  for  making  the  number  of  metics  and  citizens  who 
might  be  reported  by  means  of  the  probolae  equal,  is  hard  to  explain.  It  does 
not  seem  reasonable  to  suppose  that  metics  would  have  enough  chances  of  using 
their  arts  against  the  people  to  justify  such  a  provision. 

Sandys  (note  ad  loc.)  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  metics  had  to  receive  special 
permission  if  they  wished  to  accuse  a  person.  This  is  the  usual  interpretation  of 
the  dSeta  which  the  slave  Andromachus  and  the  metic  Teucer  asked  for  and  re- 
ceived before  they  gave  information  about  the  Mutilation  of  the  Hermae.  This 
does  not  seem  correct.  The  more  usual  meaning  of  "immunity"  fits  the  situation 
very  well.  Both  of  these  men  admitted  (And.  1,  12,  15)  that  they  had  been  present 
at  certain  mock  celebrations  of  the  mysteries.  Such  an  admission  was  enough  to 
implicate  them  in  the  punishment  that  would  come  to  those  against  whom  they 
informed.  The  aSeia  was  then  merely  the  immunity  that  was  accorded  them  for 
turning  state's  evidence.  The  chief  objection  to  this  interpretation  of  d5eia 
is,  however,  that  it  limits  a  metic's  activities  as  sycophant  to  false  unwcns.  It 
may  well  be  that  at  times  of  great  excitement,  such  as  the  Mutilation  of  the  Her- 
mae, many  metics  laid  false  informations.  But  it  is  inconceivable  that  these 
occasions  would  be  numerous  enough  to  warrant  three  probolae  at  the  *rupio  'tKKK-qala. 
There  must  have  been  opportunities  for  metics  to  extort  money  by  blackmail 
under  more  normal  circumstances.  Melas,  the  head  of  an  important  club  of 
sycophants,  is  called  an  Egyptian  (Isaeus,  V,  9).  It  may  be  that  metics  made 
use  of  club-members  or  hired  agents  where  their  machinations  demanded  the  use 
of  the  courts.  At  any  rate  it  is  extremely  unlikely  that  any  considerable  number 
of  metics  would  have  become  liable  to  such  procedures  as  probolae,  if  they  had 
been  compelled  to  ask  for  "permission  to  make  accusations."  Such  an  arrange- 
ment would  have  proved  an  invaluable  check  on  all  sycophancy. 

21  Lipsius  A.  R.  214;  448  ff.  D.  and  S.  Diet,  des  Ant.  s.  v. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  91 

affect  the  people  as  a  whole  it  is  assumed  that  "probolae  against 
sycophants"  would  be  used  only  when  they  were  guilty  of  some  overt 
act  against  the  state,  as  for  instance,  deceiving  the  people  by  their 
demagoguery.  Justification  for  this  is  found  in  Aristotle.  He  men- 
tions the  probole  against  sycophants  in  connection  with  those  against 
any  one  who  has  deceived  the  people.  Aeschines  implies  a  similar 
interpretation.22  He  is  contrasting  <pi}p.r)  and  (xvKo<pai>Tia.  "We  call 
it  sycophancy  when  ...  a  single  individual  slanders  some  one  in 
all  the  assemblies  and  before  the  senate.  For  such  acts  probolae  art- 
provided."23 

Another  reference  to  this  use  of  the  probole,  suggests  this  inter- 
pretation also.  Pollux24  after  mentioning  the  probolae  against  those 
who  deceived  the  people  adds  "The  indictments  for  sycophancy 
were  probolae  also"  (xpo/3o\at  8e  r/aav  Kai  al  ttjs  o-VKO^aurias  ypaipai). 

The  ypa<pr)  to  which  Isocrates  refers  is  undoubtedly  the  ypcupq 
<rvKo<pavTlas  mentioned  by  Aristotle.25  The  circumstances  under 
which  this  was  employed  is  a  matter  of  some  uncertainty.  The 
orators  contain  no  undisputed  references  to  its  use.  Aristogiton  was 
condemned  for  sycophancy  (avKOipavTias),  but  the  procedure  by  which 
he  was  brought  to  trial  is  not  stated.26  There  is  no  special  reason 
for  assuming  that  it  was  not  a  ypaipi).  It  may  very  well  be  that  the 
probole  and  graphe  were  frequently  closely  connected.  The  probole 
was  a  means  of  ascertaining  the  sentiment  of  the  people.  If  this  was 
unfavorable  to  the  person  against  whom  the  probole  had  been 
entered,  the  matter  might  come  before  a  dicastery  for  trial.  The 
procedure  by  which  the  case  was  entered  in  the  dicastery  was  probably 
the  ypacprj  avKOipavAas .  This  is  suggested  by  the  phraseology  of  Pol- 
lux. "The  ypa<pal  avKo^pavTlas  were  probolae."27  This  seems  to  have 
been  the  situation  in  the  trial  and  condemnation  of  Agoratus  for 

«  Aesch.  2,  145. 

23  This  definition  of  sycophancy  implies  demagoguery,  rather  than  res 
litigation. 

24  Pollux  VIIT,  46.     Pollux  is  probably  following  Aristotle  here 

20  Const,  of  Athens  59,  3.    The    speech    of    Lysias    u.    .1  which    VU 

entitled  by  Diog.  Laert.  irepi  <rvKo<f>a.PTlas  has  been  proved  incorrectly  named 
(Sauppe  Or.  Att.  II,   121.). 

Cf .  Diet,  des  Antiq.  S.  V.  ypa<p?i  avKo<pavrla<:.    Pauly-Wiss.   s.    v.   "Seldom 
There  was  nothing  dishonorable  about  sycophancy  U  ■  profession  from  a  political 
standpoint." 

24  Dem.  25,  19. 

r  Loc.  cit. 


92  SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS 

sycophancy.28  uKal  tv  t£>  Srjfiw  Kal  kv  r&  biKaaT^piw  ovKO<pa.i>Tias  avrov 
KaTeyvcjOTe."  The  phrase  tv  tw  brjfjLco  implies  that  the  proceedings  against 
him  began  with  a  probolc;  kv  tQ>  SiKaaT-qplw  indicates  beyond  doubt 
that  there  was  a  court  derision.29  If  the  ypcupri  could  be  used  as  a  part 
of  the  proceedings  that  began  with  a  probole,  it  must  have  been  used 
alone  also.  We  can  therefore  assume  that  it  was  used  independently 
against  offences  of  less  flagrant  nature  than  those  for  which  probolae 
were  employed. 

Isocrates  is  the  only  one  who  mentiones  the  eisangelia  against 
sycophants.  The  v6fj.os  daayyt\Tu<6s  quoted  by  Hyperides  contains 
no  reference  to  such  a  use.  It  may,  however,  be  included  in  the  first 
division  given  by  Hyperides.30  Like  the  probole,  the  eisangelia 
against  sycophants  would  most  naturally  be  employed  against  those 
offences  of  sycophants  that  affected  the  state. 

According  to  Pollux,  one  of  the  uses  of  the  v?dcm  was  to  prosecute 
sycophants.31  There  is  reason  for  doubting  this,  since  no  authority 
of  greater  reliability  mentions  such  a  use.  If  it  is  true  it  was  probably 
employed  against  those  who  made  a  business  of  attacking  merchants 
and  traders  by  bringing  <pa<reis  against  them.  This  would  be  an 
effort  to  turn  their  own  methods  back  upon  them.  It  is  more 
probable  that  the  statement  is  confused  and  that  the  pavis  which  is  a 
favorite  method  of  attack  open  to  sycophants,  is  said  to  be  a  method 
of  attacking  them. 

For  the  protection  of  merchants  and  shipowners,  who  would  be 
especially  exposed  to  the  attacks  of  sycophants,  there  was  aparently 
a  special  law  provided.  This  forbade  the  use  of  <pa<ns  against  such 
men  unless  there  were  good  grounds  for  believing  that  the  facts 
charged  in  the  <pcuns  could  be  established  before  the  court.  Accord- 
ingly, against  sycophants  who  preferred  such  false  charges  criminal 
information  (evdei&s)  and  summary  arrest  (airayojyr])  could  be  em- 

28  Lys.  13.  65.  Marchant  (note  on  And.  1,  123)  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  state- 
ment irtpl  rod  olohcltos  .  .  .  KivSwevcTuv  refers  to  a  proposed  ypaupl)  avKo^avTiat 
against  the  members  of  the  cabal  against  Andocides. 

**  Commentators  do  not  generally  connect  the  probole  and  ypanpij  avico^arr las 
but  it  seems  evident  that  this  must  have  been  the  relation  between  them.  Cf. 
Lipsius  A.  R.  451. 

Those  who  regard  the  trial  by  which  Agoratus  was  condemned  a  ypcupii 
are  of  the  opinion  that  the  suit  was  tih^toz.  Agoratus  was  fined  1000  drachmae. 
Some  even  infer  that  the  death  penalty  might  be  imposed.  Cf.  Marchant's  view 
about  And.  1,  123. 

50  Hyp.  IV,  7  fif.  «  VIII,  47  ff. 


SYCOPHANCY  IX  ATHENS  93 

ployed.  Such  a  provision  seems  to  be  justified  by  the  fact  that  the 
<pa<ns  against  shipowners  and  merchants  constituted  a  serious  inter- 
ference to  commerce.32 

Members  of  Clubs  certainly  found  the  organizations  to  which  they 
belonged  helpful  in  protecting  them  from  the  attacks  of  sycophants. 

Some  effective  means  of  defeating  the  aims  of  sycophant-  have 
been  mentioned  above:  Hiring  another  sycophant;  leaving  Athens 
and  residing  elsewhere;  "fawning"  on  them.33 

During  the  period  of  the  Thirty,  two  methods  were  used  to  rid  t he- 
state  of  sycophants.  One  was  a  direct  attack  upon  them.1'  Such  a 
method  could  come  only  under  an  oligarchy.  The  sycophant  was 
in  a  sense  a  democratic  institution. 

The  other  was  indirect.  Certain  laws,  such  as  those  that  dealt  with 
inheritance,  were  the  cause  of  much  litigation  because  of  the  room 
for  misunderstanding  that  they  offered.35  These  the  Thirty  an- 
nulled O7rcos  ni)  ft  Toh  <TVKo<pavTais  lipobos.  But  even  such  measures 
would  be  extremely  unpopular  with  the  democracy.  They  de- 
prived the  courts  of  too  much  power. 

So  far  as  can  be  seen,  there  were  but  few  cases  in  which  either  the 
direct  or  indirect  methods  of  punishing  sycophants  were  effective. 
Only  two  references  to  condemnation  for  sycophancy  are  found.36 
Somewhat  more  numerous  are  the  references  to  the  fine  and  partial 
disfranchisement  incurred  by  failure  to  receive  at  least  one-fifth  of 
the  votes  or  by  dropping  a  case  that  had  been  begun.  But  com- 
pared with  the  numerous  instances  in  which  sycophants  engaged  in 
litigation  these  are  very  few.  This  situation  is  exactly  what  one 
would  expect  to  find.  There  was  extreme  difficulty  in  establishing  a 
general  charge  of  sycophancy.  In  fact  it  would  be  practically  im- 
possible to  do  so  unless  the  sycophant's  operations  had  in  some  way 
affected  the  community  at  large.  Even  then  the  reputation  that 
prominent  and  eloquent  sycophants  had  gained,  of  being  the  "watch 
dogs  of  the  people"  made  conviction  hard  to  secure. 

Even  when  a  man  incurred  the  fines  mentioned,  special  action  was 
required  to  force  him  to  pay  and  to  surrender  the  privileges  which  he 
had  forfeited.     And  as  has  been  shown  above  such   special    action 

32  (Dem.)  58,  10. 

33Vid.  pp.  57,  23-24. 

34Xcn.  IlcUcn.  II,  3,  38;  Arist.  Const,  of  Athen    >; 

"Arist.  Const,  of  Athens,  35,  1  3. 

»  Dem.  25,  19;  Lys.  13,  65. 


94  SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS 

was  probably  only  instituted  by  a  person  who  had  some  personal 
interest  in  securing  the  enforcement  of  the  law  in  a  particular  case. 

A  surer  means  of  successful  action  against  a  sycophant  was  to 
bring  suit  against  him  on  any  sort  of  charge  and  then  introduce  into 
the  accusation  extraneous  matters  dealing  with  his  activity  as  a  sy- 
cophant.37 Such  a  method  would  be  more  likely  to  affect  the  jurors. 
The  scheme  used  by  Archedemus  in  protecting  Crito  was  very  effec- 
tive. He  made  it  his  business  to  hunt  up  matters  of  which  he  could 
accuse  the  sycophants  and  when  one  of  them  opened  suit  against 
Crito,  Archedemus  responded  with  a  counter  suit  that  involved  the 
charges  that  he  had  found  it  possible  to  use  against  them.  The 
account  given  by  Xenophon  of  this  method  implies  that  Archedemus 
never  failed  in  stopping  blackmail  or  actual  prosecution  of  Crito.38 

The  mere  loss  of  a  suit,  even  if  it  entailed  no  fine  or  atimia,  was 
an  effective  check  on  a  sycophant's  operations.  Just  as  the  reputa- 
tion of  having  won  a  suit  made  a  sycophant  more  successful  in  black- 
mail, so  the  reputation  of  having  lost  lessened  his  chances  of  success. 
Euxitheus,  accused  of  the  murder  of  Herodes,  states  that  the  syco- 
phants will  lose  their  opportunities  for  blackmail  if  the  jurors  show 
their  power  and  vote  against  them.39  So  also  Hyperides  implies  that 
the  business  of  sycophants'  lagged  after  the  conviction  of  one  or  two 
notorious  ones.40 

Elsewhere  in  the  Greek  world  stringent  measures  were  employed 
against  sycophants.  Charondas  of  Catana  in  Sicily  is  said  to  have 
provided  by  law  for  the  public  disgrace  of  those  who  were  convicted 
of  "sycophancy."  They  were  driven  about  the  streets  with  crowns 
of  tamarisk  on  their  heads,  as  a  sign  that  they  had  won  the  "palm 
of  ill  will."41 

In  spite  of  the  numerous  methods  of  meeting  the  evil  sycophancy 
flourished  and  the  very  fact  that  many  different  means  of  combatting 
it  were  necessary  shows  that  none  of  them  were  very  successful. 
The  Athenians  were  in  a  measure  reconciled  to  excessive  and   vex- 

37  This  is  what  was  done  against  Aristogiton  and  Theocrines. 

*»  Xen.  Mem.  2,  9. 

19  Ant.  5,  80. 

«°  IV,  33,  36. 

41  Diod.  XII,  12,  1.  The  remedy  that  is  accredited  to  Philip  of  Macedon 
(Theopompus  Fr.  107)  is  Aristophanic  in  its  preposterous  claim  on  possibility. 
Every  one  in  his  domain  who  was  guilty  of  false  testimony,  perjury,  professional 
advocacy  or  sycophancy  was  to  be  forced  to  go  to  a  city  especially  prepared  for 
such  men.     This  place  he  styled  Uoi'rjpownXis.  Vid.  Suidas  s.  v.  Aov\uv  t6Xis. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS  95 

atious  litigation  as  inevitable  nuisances.42  Distinction  between  the 
sycophant  and  the  good  informer  was  hard  to  fix.  Too  stringent 
measures  against  those  accused  or  suspected  of  sycophancy  would 
discourage  many  well-founded  accusations.  In  the  epigrammatic 
words  of  Aristophanes,  "There  is  no  charm  against  the  sting  of  a 
sycophant."43 

*"Cf.  Cicero  Ros.  Am.  20. 
«  Plutus  885. 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS 


INDEX  OF  PASSAGES 

From  the  orators,  historians,  Aristophanes  and  Plato. 


Aeschines 

I 

Page 

1  ff 2,3,21,22,46 

44    11 

55     13 

56    13 

58     13 

82    11 

84    12,  17 

85     11 

86    65 

93 14 

99    vii 

107    34,46 

117     14 

167     13 

170    13 

196    13 

II 

93     47 

145     91 

III 

51     47 

Andocides 

I 

1  ff 22 

3    40 

4    13 

7     22 

9    14 

11  41 

12  89 

13  41 

15  41,90 

17  41 

27  41,42 

35  41 


37     42 

59     41 

65     

66     11 

71     40 

91     14 

92     40 

99     24.40 

100     40 

101    14.  53 

106     13,  14 

117 22 

121     50,67 

123 92 

124 13 

II 

6ff 15 

IV 

1     1 

15    

18    

Antiphon 
I 

22     14 

Tetral. 
A 

a5ff 

V 

8     12 

11     17 

16     » 

17     70 

34     41 

59     

60     U 

74     70 


98  SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS 

78     23,  70        300     26 

79     13,22        121 vi 

80     94        472     ?5 

90     .  12         529     20 

824     16 

838     71 


VI 


12  ff 4        840    35 

16     4,6       1083  (sch.) ?5 

21     4,5       1256    19 

23     4       1345 14 

34     4,  5       1360 IS 

36     5 

37     4,  5  peace 

38     5,6 

42     5,6 

43     vi,  6,46 

49     6 

50     50 


191  21 

505  9 

638  71 

639  35 


Aristophanes 
Acharnians  31 


Plutus 


819     28 

725  ff 20  873    v 

818    19  885     95 

819     26  900     2 

820    24  908     28 

829     25  914  ff 3 

903  ff 19  936    46 

908     26  946 20 

B.  ,  970     20 

Birds 

44     24  Wasps 

a£ffzzzzzzzziz5   ioifr « 

1422  71    J«  20 

U32  25        

1451  ::::::::::::::::::::::25   *«* 13,23 

287  15 

Clouds  399  17 

207  9   411  14 

474  ff 14 

Ecclesiazusae  488  ff 14 

562  ff 24        505     20 

517     9 

Frogs  556  ff 15,  17 

362     26        564  ff 15 

1146  ff 25        578  ff 17 

587 11,45 

Knights  620  ff 15,  17 

259     vi,  46        841     32 

261     23,  34        847  ff 18 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  ATHENS 


99 


878     18 

897     20 

900     14 

920    18 

967  ff 15 

973     18 

1000  ff 18 

1091  ff 7 

1101  ff 17 

Aristotle 
Constitution  of  Athens 

7.3 8 

8.2 8 

9.1 1,8 

9.2 8 

24.3 8 

27.3 9 

35.3 25,93 

39.6 88 

43.2 45 

43.5 90 

45.2 45 

48.3 45 

55.2 43 

55.3 44 

59.3 91 

61.2 45 

Politics 
1274a  8,9 

Rhetoric 
1     16 

Demosthenes 
XIX 

216     54 

XX 

13  13 

24  15 

34  15 

53  11 

76  13 

78  11 

98  14 

166  17 

XXI 

4     11 

7ff 15 


47      

66     IS 

83     

92 14 

96     u 

99     15 

103  ff 

112 

114     49 

117     4') 

139     

141     

154     13 

160     14 

182     

186     15 

193     14 

197     14 

209     IS 

213     15 

223  ff 9,  14 

226     11 

XXII 

52 

4     21 

26  ff 87 

46     14 

96  ff 14 

XXIII 

1     12,  21 

5     12 

20     13 

65     11 

80     

100     15 

206     22 

XX  IV 



1     22 

2  .  11 
I        

6     

M     52 

37    n 

57     14 

66  53 

73     14 

76    ....  n 


KM) 


SYCOPHANCY  IN  A'illl  NS 


78     11 

87     It 

90     14,  15 

92     11 

105     39 

123     39 

127     13 

136  ff 13 

151     12 

154     14 

158     52 

159     13 

164     14 

166     39 

173  ff 45 

200  ff 13,52 

XXV 

4     39 

8  ff 79 

11     80 

14     81 

19     12,80,91,93 

30     39,45 

32     13 

36     81 

37     46,51,79 

38     81 

40    79,81 

47     38,80 

49  ff 81 

52     79 

54  ff 13,82 

60  ff 82 

64  ff 79,82 

67     82 

68     80 

76    13 

78     28,40,83 

79  ff 13 

83  ff 15 

XXVI 

Iff 45 

9    87 

11     51 

XXVII 

1     12 

53    15 

68     15 


XXVJII 
1         39 

XXIX 
28     54 

XXX 

1     22 

XXXII 

4     65 

5     66 

8     66 

10  ff 56,60,65,66 

21  ff 14 

24     66 

26     66 

27     13 

XXXIV 

1     22 

38    13 

XXXV 

51     26 

54     14 

56     15 

XXXVI 

8    13 

36  ff 13 

42  ff 13 

57  ff 15 

XXXVII 

33    13 

37     13 

38  ff 13,  60,64 

45     27 

48     15,64 

52     13 

XXXVIII 
19  ff 15,27 

25     13 

27     15 

XXXEX 

1     22 

2         60,61 

3    32 

4ff 61 


SYCOPHANCY  IX  ATHENS 


1<)1 


13     60 

14     14,  28,40 

16  ff 13 

18     63 

27     13 

32  ff 63 

35     15 

37  ff 61,62 

57     13 

XL 

3     62 

5     13,  22 

8  ff 60 

9     11 

11     11,61 

12     22 

14     62 

16     22 

17  ff 62 

28     61,63 

32     22,47.  63 

38     IS 

43     22 

50     12 

53     22 

55     11 

57     12,67 

58     13,  63 

59     12.  67 

61  ff 12 

XLIII 

71     27 

XLIV 
3     53 

XLV 

1     12 

6     12 

47     13 

57  ff 56 

63     13,  58 

61     56,  58 

66    13,  15 

77     13 

85     Iv  14 

XLVI 
26     


I. Ill 
1     '....  21.2- 

M     

26  ff...  29 

I. VI 

6    26 

47  IS 

LVD 

34     vii 

I.YIII 

4  : 

5     

6     

7     I         : 

8     

10     .... 

I-1 
13 
19 
22  ff..., 

27     

28  ff ... 
52 

36     ...  =] 

39  ff... 

42  . 

43  ... 
IS 

I. IX 
9ff 

16  .....  11 
52                                                   M 

Din  Ut<  BUS 



1 

2     ... 
I 

8     .... 
9 
10 

12  . 

13  Bl 
15 

17  U 


102  SYCOPHANCY   IN  ATHENS 

1 1 ;i  a  Sn  i  313  314    

XI,  87,5  7      31<W18  24-72 

.Ml.  12,  1     94  XVI 



1  XVII 

Frag.II    12 

2  $5      ,  ; 

8    18  g 

»  :::::::::::::::::56 

III  33     56 

23     14  34     

32  ff 15  42     26,27 

35   1S  XVIII 

IV  1  IT 75,88,89 

7     92  3     7<> 

31     13  5     76 

32    13      7-10    37,57,77,89 

33    14,  31,  94  11     55,  65 

35    27,  29  12    55,65,  78 

36     14,  94  48  ff 76 

38    14  52    47,  78 

53  ff 78 

ISAEUS  -y-Y 

HI  15    33 

46  ff 37 

XXI 

V  5     vii.  33 

7-9     47,63,64,90 

8    60  Lycurgus 

40     47,63,64  c.  Leoc. 

3     25 

ISOCRATES  4      1;  3 

VII  6     1'  21 

46     12 

52     12 

VIII  79     14 

130     15  90     3 


54     15 


91  

XV  no  

8     - 23,  33  119  

24     vii.  34  127  

25     34  134  ff 

33     33  138  

142     16  139  1 

160    15,34  149  2 

241     64  150  15 


16 


X 


XII 


SYCOPHANCY   IN   ATHENS  103 

LYSIAS  XVII 

j  1  22 

36    9  XVIII 

43     33  *  29 

9  

Ill  14  ■  ; 


.47 


19    30 


20     33  XIX 

9     

VI 


9  JO 

11  

9    40         51  

M    40         55  

42    40  64  ;<> 

54    » 

VII  1  44 


.22 


17    M 

19    

XXV 

3    %-ii.  »2,  14 

7     14 

13     13 

19     

XXVI 

8  ff 44 

9     45 

XIII  16  ff 44 


2     21 

3     21,  22 

62     13 


5  ff 74 

8-12     74 

18     74 

19     66 

22     74 

29     75 

30    75 

32     74 


XXVI 1 1 

1     

3    15 

XXIX 

1    

6     

8     29 


34    75  XXX 

38     75  5     .... 


64     73 

65     31,  73,92,93 

70  ff 73 


XXXI 
1  ii     21,  H 


76  ff 73,  75  XXXII 

1  Ii 22 


XVI 


Pi  \i" 


9  II 

12  13 

17  13,44      L7BC 

31  44      20DE 12 


104                                          SYCOPHANCY  IN   ATHENS 

21A       11  Phocion 

27B       12  io     79,  82 

28A       16 

34C-E  15  Solon 

36B      87  18    1)8 


Crito 


24     v,    28 


44E  56  Timoleon 

45A  36  37     10 

45B  40 

45C  56  Theopompcs 


45E      40 

Euthydcmns 
290A     13 

Gorgias 
515E     9 

Laxvs 

730D     2,3 

745A     28 

767C-E 16 

768A     2 

876AB 16 


Frag.  107 viii,  9-1 

Thucydides 
11,40 1,25 


Xenophon 

Apology 

4     

16 

14     

12 

Hellenica 
1,7,  2 : 51 


928BC 28      H'  3'  12 24'  2;>' 


937A     12 

938B     14 

949A     15 


11,3,38 25,93 


Memorabilia 

11,9,4 49,56,57,94 

Republic  IV,  2,  35 34 

340D  (sch.) v        IV,  4,  11 viii,  54 


Plutarch  Politeia 

Alcibiades 
20     43 


523 


I,  14 16,69 

I,  15 69 

I,  16 9,68,69 

De  Curiosilale  l>  17 69 

I.  18 10,69 

Ill,  1 68 

DeExilio  III,  1-6 ° 

11     24      ni,2 

Pericles                                                          Symposium 
9     9       IV,  30 


62  86*  "l2 


I    \l\  I  KM  null    \l  NORMA     Ids    \\(,l  I  I  s 

THE  IMVIKSII  \  LIBRARY 
I  Ins  Look  is  I  )l  h  on  the-  l;iM  date  stamped  below 


JAN-^5  1949 


8tC*0  ID-UH 

MM  30  Wi 


I    on  the  last  date  stamped 

•WKNOV2  0  199^ 


'-UJJP 


•'/>« 


1!»  v ' 


|  MAY  021983 


APR   *1983 


■ 


Form  L-fi 
25m -2     , 


?4 


K  CALiFOKKU 


ANGELES 


58  00146  4824 


AA 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

AA    001  308  725   9 


